Background: Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin combination therapy is an effective treatment for many patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). Reducing the length of treatment may be advantageous. We performed a systematic review and economic evaluation to assess shorter treatment duration of this regimen.

Methods: We searched fourteen bibliographic databases (including The Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase) from 2000 to October 2009 and consulted experts and drug manufacturers. Eligible articles were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) selected according to predefined criteria. We undertook an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of shortened treatment versus standard treatment in the UK.

Results: Six trials were included. In the sub-group of patients who had low viral load (LVL) and a rapid virological response (RVR), there were no statistically significant differences in sustained virological response (SVR) rates between patients who received standard treatment (range, 83 percent to 100 percent) and those who received shortened courses (range 84 percent to 96 percent) (24 weeks for genotype 1, 16 weeks for genotype 2/3). Shortened treatment resulted in cost savings, but in some scenarios also resulted in poorer outcome, compared with standard treatment. This requires a judgment to be made on the value of the quality-adjusted life-year loss resulting from adopting a shorter treatment regimen, if shorter treatment is associated with a lower SVR than standard treatment duration.

Conclusions: For chronic HCV patients who have LVL and achieve an RVR, shortened peginterferon and ribavirin combination therapy could be considered as a viable treatment option.

The paper by Drummond et al. in this issue of the Journal discusses how the principles that have been proposed in previous papers by these authors might be used as the basis for benchmarking health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This raises a number of important issues, some acknowledged and discussed by the authors, and some not. The commentary by Sampietro provides an analysis of many of these. Two issues strike me as fundamental in this debate: the need for an agreed and objective approach to describing health system decision-making systems; and the need for an agreed and objective approach to the assessment of the quality of HTA reports to support specific decisions.

Antenatal care was established in Norway during the 1930s. Unlike the other Nordic countries, care is provided by general practitioners, not be midwives. Guidelines were first issued in 1984 after a debate about the quality of the care. This article reports providers' compliance to important parts of the guidelines.

Objectives: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a complex condition, which is variously influenced by physical, emotional, societal, and relationship factors. ED has serious implications for the quality of life (QoL) enjoyed by an affected male and his partner. It is very important, therefore, to understand the impact of ED on the QoL of those affected by it. Our objective was to determine if the eight-question Patient Reported Erectile Function Assessment (PREFA) could act as an independent, comprehensive disease-specific instrument in the assessment of QoL as it is impacted by ED.

Methods: During the development and validation of the Erectile Function–Visual Analog Scale (EF-VAS) (14), a new ED-specific preference-based instrument, a series of questions were included at the beginning of the assessment that would act as a way to encourage respondents to focus on their own experience with ED. Upon analysis of the EF-VAS data, it became apparent that the eight-question “warm up” section might act as a stand-alone assessment. Accordingly, the eight questions were named PREFA, and a validation analysis was undertaken to determine their consistency, feasibility, reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Results: The PREFA questionnaire was found to be feasible and simple to complete, reliable, and valid, with excellent responsiveness. Overall, the PREFA has demonstrated that it can perform as a stand alone, validated assessment of the impact of ED on QoL, assessing areas of QoL not previously captured in existing instruments.

Conclusions: The PREFA is suitable for use in clinical and research settings as a disease-specific QoL assessment tool.

Once the effects of short-term data analysis of new medical technology appear clear, additional or long-term analyses are infrequently performed on subsequent information. This often leads to incomplete understanding of the technology's full medical, social, and economic effects.

Available data for the Federal Republic of Germany on mortality, hospitalization, and work loss due to gastric and duodenal ulcer and gastritis/duodenitis allowed long-term analysis of direct and indirect impacts on the population from 1975 through 1984. Mortality rates declined for all ages (ρ ≤ 0.01) except for those age 75 and older, and nearly equally for all study diagnoses. Hospital discharge rates for all diagnoses rose slowly and steadily, while those for persons diagnosed with gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer or gastritis/duodenitis declined sharply (ρ = 0.04). Declines of hospital discharges were greater for men than for women. The ongoing decline in rates of mortality and hospital discharges increased after 1977. Rates of work loss per 10,000 population-at-risk for study diagnoses were either stable or increasing until 1979, after which there was a marked decline (ρ = 0.03 for gastric ulcer, ρ = 0.02 for duodenal ulcer, ρ = 0.008 for gastritis/duodenitis). Work loss due to study diseases declined as a percentage of work loss for all diseases during the later study years. Only by examining many years' data could the accelerating declines be discerned, not only for mortality and hospitalizations, which have been examined before, but also for work loss, an infrequently analyzed effect of disease.

This paper considers economic forces on the organization and use of technology in hospitals from a U.S. perspective. U.S. hospitals are moving from a period of very loose financial constraints to one in which the demand side of the market is likely to exert much greater discipline. Theory and limited evidence suggest some important effects on the adoption and use of technology, leading in general to more emphasis on cost reduction and less emphasis on costly quality improvements. Also discussed are economic influences on the movement of technology out of the hospital and on the development of new technologies. Finally, some peculiarities of very high cost technologies are noted.

I have long felt the need for documentation on the global development—I could probably pin it to the moment I was visiting health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in the United States in 1995, and was looking forward to a trip to the Office of Technology Assessment, only to be told it had just been shut. Instead, I visited the Office of Health Technology Assessment in Washington. In addition, I have observed that some regular attendees of annual meetings of International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC) and then Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi), have been slowly dropping out, so that a lot of the history as well as their valuable experiences and expertise have been lost. To be fair, studies have been written about specific HTA institutions, programs, countries, and even regions. Attempts have also been made to chart the history of HTA, but these have, however, fizzled out. Why is this important? Going back to my personal experience, when I first set out to establish HTA in Malaysia, I was plagued with several questions—apart from the obvious one about what HTA really meant, there were others like what organization structure should it have, what should be the work process, how could HTA be used, to name a few. I needed to know what the options were, for example, in coming up with an organizational structure, and to understand these options I would need to look at organizational models in other countries—should it be a national office with regional offices like the Canadian model, or a fully public agency but not within the department of health, like the Swedish model, or an almost independent agency like the Catalan agency in Barcelona. In the absence of a detailed account with the information I sought, I actually had to physically visit various agencies to study their organizational structure, work process, and application, to hear of the challenges they faced, and to learn from their experiences of what could work and what may not.

In assessing technologies for disabled people, the aims of habilitative or rehabilitative interventions, the concepts of disability and handicap, and the potential of existing and emerging technologies in various social arenas, as well as the structure of service delivery systems, are of importance. A discussion of these issues in the light of previous work on cost and effectiveness in the field is given.

Our present-day health sectors are increasingly characterized by both rapid technological change and growing visibility of its considerable consequences in terms of the quality and costs of health care. Improved health care decision-making in such an environment requires adequate and timely information on the benefits, risks, and costs of health care technology. Whereas traditionally, technology assessment focused predominantly on evaluating efficacy and (short-term) safety in a more or less “controlled” environment, an interesting shift in emphasis is now occurring. There is a growing recognition that improved information is also needed on the health and economic outcomes of technology as used in everyday clinical practice, i.e., on its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and long-term safety in normal “uncontrolled” daily medical life. Moreover, because the treatment of particular clinical conditions (such as stable angina, gallstones, or prostatism) increasingly involves choices among alternative diagnostic and therapeutic options, these assessments should ideally provide effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information for all the various technological alternatives involved.

We read with great interest the excellent paper of Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea et al. on the review of current policies of screening for colorectal cancer in European countries (12).Colorectal cancer screening has been a hot topic in health technology assessment and medical decision making (13;15;18). The study by Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea and colleagues focused mainly on the “old” fifteen member states of the European Union; however, colorectal cancer represents a large epidemiological (3;11) and economic (4) burden for the society and the healthcare financing agency in Eastern European countries. We would like to highlight some important aspect of colorectal cancer screening in Hungary.

Introduction: Many governments have introduced health technology assessment (HTA) as an important tool to manage the uptake and use of health-related technologies efficiently. Although surgeons play a central role in the uptake and diffusion of new technologies, little is known about their opinion and understanding of the HTA role and process.

Methods: A cross-sectional pilot study was conducted using an online questionnaire which was distributed to Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons over a 4-week period. Information was sought about knowledge and views of the HTA process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, frequencies, and proportions were calculated.

Results: Sixty-two surgeons completed the survey; of these, 55 percent reported their primary work place as a public hospital. Twenty-four percent of the participants reported that they had never heard of the HTA agency and 60 percent reported that surgical procedures are most likely to be introduced in the Australian healthcare system at the public hospital level (which is beyond the HTA's scope and dealt with at a state level). However, 61 percent considered that decisions about funding and adoption of new technologies should take place at the national level.

Conclusions: This survey provides some evidence that many surgeons remain unaware of the federal government's HTA process but still value evidence-based information. In order for HTA to be an effective aid to rational adoption of health-related technologies, there is a need for an evidence-based approach that is integrated and is accepted and understood by the medical professions.

Health systems around the world cope with the challenge of difficult economic times, and the value of health technology assessment (HTA) is increasing. Making the right choices, with limited resources, in the face of increasingly complex technologies requires decisions informed by data and analyses that help us to manage the risks involved. Those who undertake and use HTA can play a greater role in helping decision makers meet these challenges; they need to think how to define innovation and respond to it, how to communicate their analyses, and, critically, how to align their work with the ambitions of their health systems. HTA can become a key health system enabler without compromising its objectivity or independence. It can say that it is too early to determine the value of a new technology when the data simply will not support a safe decision. However, it can also be bold and recommend the managed introduction of new technologies, even when the when the data is immature, provided that the health system understands the risks and there is a plausible case for believing that further research will support the value proposition. The goal for HTA is to be able confidently to do both.

Background: There is growing trend for some surgical procedures previously performed in hospitals to be done in alternative settings, including office-based facilities. There has been some safety concerns reported in the media, which document serious adverse events following procedures performed in an office-based setting. To understand the current regulatory oversight of surgery in this setting ASERNIP-S conducted a review of the legislative and accreditation process governing these facilities in Australia.

Methods: Using rapid review methodology, internet searches targeted government Web sites for relevant publicly-available documents. Use of consolidated versions of legislative instruments ensured currency of information. Standards were sourced directly from the issuing authorities or those that oversee the accreditation process.

Results: Within Australia, healthcare facilities for surgery and their licensing are defined by each state and territory, which results in significant jurisdictional variation. These variations relate to the need for anesthesia beyond conscious sedation and listing of procedures in legislative instruments. In 2013, Australia adopted National Safety and Quality Health Service standards (NSQHS standards) for the accreditation of hospitals and day surgery centers; however, there is no NSQHS standard for office-based facilities. The main legislative driver for compliance is access to reimbursement schemes for service delivery.

Conclusions: The legislative and accreditation framework creates a situation whereby healthcare facilities that provide services outside the various legal definitions of surgery and those not covered by a reimbursement scheme, can operate without licensing and accreditation oversight. This situation exposes patients to potential increased risk of harm when receiving treatment in such unregulated facilities.