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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |