Background The concept of the regulatory sandbox-a safe space for testing new regulatory processes-was first used within the financial technologies (FinTech) sector, but has since expanded into other sectors, including healthcare. Objectives This review aims to describe the extent of use of sandboxes in healthcare and assess the potential for the sandbox approach to be used to test and develop emerging health technology assessment (HTA) methods, policies and processes for innovative technologies. Methods A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify published papers and reports that described and/or assessed the use of sandboxes in the healthcare sector. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Econlit, Social Policy and Practice, and Health Management Information Consortium databases from inception to March 2020. Free-text Google search was also conducted to identify relevant grey literature. Only papers and reports discussing or evaluating the use of sandboxes in healthcare settings and published in English were included. Included studies were qualitatively summarised using a thematic analysis approach. Results Overall, 46 papers and reports were included. The topics covered were classified into 4 major themes: history of the regulatory sandbox, the sandbox as a testing environment, the sandbox as a regulatory approach, examples of using sandboxes in healthcare. Findings show that the use of regulatory sandboxes in healthcare is relatively new and primarily used in highincome countries to support the adoption of new technologies, particularly those related to digital health. Recommendations are made based on these findings to guide its use in HTA policy and methods development. Conclusions Sandboxes are increasingly used within healthcare regulation. Despite its potential, this approach has not been used in HTA policy and methodological developments to date. HTA agencies should consider this approach to facilitate developing policies, methods and processes for innovative and disruptive health technologies. Transferability to low-and middle-income countries' settings, however, should be assessed.
IntroductionReimbursement decision making is based on a relative effectiveness assessment (REA), which may be combined with a cost-effectiveness assessment, by national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies. These assessments are based on clinical data where new interventions are compared to the current standard of care, which may differ between countries. Since most pivotal trials only include a limited number of interventions, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can be used to compare multiple interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of ITCs in HTA decision making in the Netherlands and England.MethodsAll pharmaceutical assessments published between 2015 and 2019 by the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were reviewed to determine whether an ITC had been used. For detailed analysis we included all assessments of ZIN using an ITC, and a random sample of assessments of NICE using an ITC (10 assessments per publication year).ResultsBetween 2015 and 2019 a total of 106 and 265 assessments were conducted by ZIN and NICE, respectively. Of these assessments 48 from ZIN and 150 from NICE included an ITC. The detailed analysis showed that pharmaceutical assessments including indirect comparative evidence led to the REA conclusion of similar therapeutic evidence in 57 percent of 48 assessments by ZIN and in 52 percent of 50 assessments by NICE. Reimbursement recommendations including indirect comparative evidence most often resulted in positive recommendations by ZIN (57% assessments), and in restricted recommendations by NICE (50% assessments). Different methods were employed to incorporate indirect comparative evidence, such as naïve ITCs and network meta-analysis.ConclusionsOur results showed a significant variability in the use of ITCs between NICE and ZIN, which may contribute to differences in their recommendations. Further analysis will provide deeper insight in these differences and may provide suggestions for a clearer international guidance on the use of ITCs for HTA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.