The aim of our analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HF-IMRT) versus conventional dose three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. A Markov model was constructed to calculate the incremental quality-adjusted life years and costs. Transition probabilities, adverse events and utilities were derived from relevant systematic reviews. Microcosting in a large university hospital was applied to calculate cost vectors. The expected mean lifetime cost of patients undergoing 3DCRT, IMRT and HF-IMRT were 7,160 euros, 6,831 euros and 6,019 euros respectively. The expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 5.753 for 3DCRT, 5.956 for IMRT and 5.957 for HF-IMRT. Compared to 3DCRT, both IMRT and HF-IMRT resulted in more health gains at a lower cost. It can be concluded that high-dose IMRT is not only cost-effective compared to the conventional dose 3DCRT but, when used with a hypofractionation scheme, it has great cost-saving potential for the public payer and may improve access to radiation therapy for patients.

In the drive towards faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence from surrogate endpoints, leading to increased decision uncertainty. This study undertook an updated survey of methodological guidance for using surrogate endpoints across international HTA agencies. We reviewed HTA and economic evaluation methods guidance from European, Australian and Canadian HTA agencies. We considered how guidelines addressed the methods for handling surrogate endpoints, including (1) level of evidence, (2) methods of validation, and (3) thresholds of acceptability. Across the 73 HTA agencies surveyed, 29 (40%) had methodological guidelines that made specific reference to consideration of surrogate outcomes. Of the 45 methods documents analysed, the majority [27 (60%)] were non-technology specific, 15 (33%) focused on pharmaceuticals and three (7%) on medical devices. The principles of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines published in 2015 on the handling of surrogate endpoints appear to have been adopted by many European HTA agencies, i.e. preference for final patient-relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate endpoints with biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence of the association between the surrogate and final endpoint. Only a small number of HTA agencies (UK National Institute for Care and Excellence; the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) have developed more detailed prescriptive criteria for the acceptance of surrogate endpoints, e.g. meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials showing strong association between the treatment effect on the surrogate and final outcomes. As the decision uncertainty associated with reliance on surrogate endpoints carries a risk to patients and society, there is a need for HTA agencies to develop more detailed methodological guidance for consistent selection and evaluation of health technologies that lack definitive final patient-relevant outcome evidence at the time of the assessment.

Our aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of two intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) interventions: 1) stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) and 2) placement of subdural grid electrodes (SDGs) both followed by resective surgery in patients with drug-resistant, partial-onset epilepsy, compared with medical management (MM) in Hungary from payer's perspective. Methods: The incremental health gains and costs of iEEG interventions have been determined with a combination of a decision tree and prevalence Markov process model over a 30-year time horizon in a cost-utility analysis (CUA). To address the effect of parameter uncertainty on the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Our results showed that both SEEG and SDG interventions represent a more expensive but more effective strategy than MM representing the current standard of care. The total discounted cost of SEEG and SDG were € 32,760 and € 25,028 representing € 18,108 and € 10,375 additional cost compared with MM, respectively. However, they provide an additional 3.931 (in SEEG group) and 3.444 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; in SDG group), correspondingly. Thus, the ICER of SEEG is € 4607 per QALY gain, while the ICER for SDG is € 3013 per QALY gain, compared with MM. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of € 41,058 per QALY in Hungary, both subtypes of iEEG interventions are cost-effective and provide good value for money. Significance: Because of the high cost of implanting electrodes and monitoring, the invasive EEG for patients with refractory epilepsy is currently not available in the Hungarian national healthcare system. Our study demonstrated that these procedures in Hungary are cost-effective compared with the MM. As a result, the introduction of iEEG interventions to the reimbursement list of the National Health Insurance Fund Administration was initiated.

Background: The Palliative Care Consult Service (PCCS) programme was among the first initiations in Hungary to provide palliative care for patients admitted to hospital. The PCCS team provides palliative care for mainly cancer patients and their family members and manages the patient pathway after being discharged from the hospital. The service started in 2014 with 300-400 patient visits per year. The aim of this study is to give a comprehensive overview of the PCCS programme guided by a conceptual framework designed by SELFIE ("Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing, and performancE"), a Horizon2020 funded EU project and to identify the facilitators and barriers to its wider implementation. Methods: PCCS has been selected by the SELFIE consortium for in-depth evaluation as one of the Hungarian integrated care models for persons with multi-morbidity. The qualitative analysis of the PCCS programme was based on available documents of the care provider and interviews with different stakeholders related to the programme. Results: The integrated, multidisciplinary and patient-centred approach was well-received among the patients, family members and clinical departments, as verified by the increasing number of requests for consultations. As a result of the patient pathway management across providers (e.g. from inpatient care to homecare) a higher level of coordination could be achieved in the continuity of care for seriously-ill patients. The regulatory framework has only partially been established, policies to integrate care across organizations and sectors and adequate financial mechanism to support the enhancement and sustainability of the PCCS are still missing. Conclusions: The service integration of palliative care could be implemented successfully in an academic hospital in Hungary. However, the continuation and enhancement of the programme will require further evidence on the performance of the integrated model of palliative care and a more systematic approach particularly regarding the evaluation, financing and implementation process.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe prevalence of multimorbidity is increasing in many Western countries. Persons with multimorbidity often experience a lack of alignment in the care that multiple health and social care organisations provide. As a response, integrated care programmes are appearing. It is a challenge to evaluate these and to choose appropriate outcome measures. Focus groups were held with persons with multimorbidity in eight European countries to better understand what good health and a good care process mean to them and to identify what they find most important in each.MethodsIn 2016, eight focus groups were organised with persons with multimorbidity in: Austria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the UK (total n=58). Each focus group followed the same two-part procedure: (1) defining (A) good health and well-being and (B) a good care process, and (2) group discussion on prioritising the most important concepts derived from part one and from a list extracted from the literature. Inductive and deductive analyses were done.ResultsOverall, the participants in all focus groups concentrated more on the care process than on health. Persons with multimorbidity defined good health as being able to conduct and plan normal daily activities, having meaningful social relationships and accepting the current situation. Absence of shame, fear and/or stigma, being able to enjoy life and overall psychological well-being were also important facets of good health. Being approached holistically by care professionals was said to be vital to a good care process. Continuity of care and trusting professionals were also described as important. Across countries, little variation in health definitions were found, but variation in defining a good care process was seen.ConclusionA variety of health outcomes that entail well-being, social and psychological facets and especially experience with care outcomes should be included when evaluating integrated care programmes for persons with multimorbidity.

Schizophrenia represents a substantial cost for the healthcare system in Europe driven by the high cost per patient. Substantial savings could potentially be achieved by increasing investment in the following areas: (1) reducing the number of hospitalizations e.g. by increasing the efficiency of outpatient care; (2) working out interventions targeted at specific symptoms; (3) improving patient persistence and adherence in antipsychotic therapy.

Background As the prevalence of multi-morbidity increases in ageing societies, health and social care systems face the challenge of providing adequate care to persons with complex needs. Approaches that integrate care across sectors and disciplines have been increasingly developed and implemented in European countries in order to tackle this challenge. The aim of the article is to identify success factors and crucial elements in the process of integrated care delivery for persons with complex needs as seen from the practical perspective of the involved stakeholders (patients, professionals, informal caregivers, managers, initiators, payers). Methods Seventeen integrated care programmes for persons with complex needs in 8 European countries were investigated using a qualitative approach, namely thick description, based on semi-structured interviews and document analysis. In total, 233 face-to-face interviews were conducted with stakeholders of the programmes between March and September 2016. Meta-analysis of the individual thick description reports was performed with a focus on the process of care delivery. Results Four categories that emerged from the overarching analysis are discussed in the article: (1) a holistic view of the patient, considering both mental health and the social situation in addition to physical health, (2) continuity of care in the form of single contact points, alignment of services and good relationships between patients and professionals, (3) relationships between professionals built on trust and facilitated by continuous communication, and (4) patient involvement in goal-setting and decision-making, allowing patients to adapt to reorganised service delivery. Conclusions We were able to identify several key aspects for a well-functioning integrated care process for complex patients and how these are put into actual practice. The article sets itself apart from the existing literature by specifically focussing on the growing share of the population with complex care needs and by providing an analysis of actual processes and interpersonal relationships that shape integrated care in practice, incorporating evidence from a variety of programmes in several countries.