Cargando…

National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharma, Deepshikha, Aggarwal, Arun Kumar, Downey, Laura E., Prinja, Shankar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333164/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33423205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7
_version_ 1783732977204723712
author Sharma, Deepshikha
Aggarwal, Arun Kumar
Downey, Laura E.
Prinja, Shankar
author_facet Sharma, Deepshikha
Aggarwal, Arun Kumar
Downey, Laura E.
Prinja, Shankar
author_sort Sharma, Deepshikha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken. RESULTS: Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely. CONCLUSION: Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8333164
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83331642021-08-20 National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison Sharma, Deepshikha Aggarwal, Arun Kumar Downey, Laura E. Prinja, Shankar Pharmacoecon Open Review Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken. RESULTS: Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely. CONCLUSION: Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7. Springer International Publishing 2021-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8333164/ /pubmed/33423205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Sharma, Deepshikha
Aggarwal, Arun Kumar
Downey, Laura E.
Prinja, Shankar
National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison
title National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison
title_full National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison
title_fullStr National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison
title_full_unstemmed National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison
title_short National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison
title_sort national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: a cross-country comparison
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333164/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33423205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7
work_keys_str_mv AT sharmadeepshikha nationalhealthcareeconomicevaluationguidelinesacrosscountrycomparison
AT aggarwalarunkumar nationalhealthcareeconomicevaluationguidelinesacrosscountrycomparison
AT downeylaurae nationalhealthcareeconomicevaluationguidelinesacrosscountrycomparison
AT prinjashankar nationalhealthcareeconomicevaluationguidelinesacrosscountrycomparison