Mary Alison Maloney1, Lisa Schwartz2, Daria O'Reilly3, Mitchel Levine3. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly "Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics),McMaster UniversityBayer HealthCare LLCalison_maloney@optimum.net. 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly "Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics")Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis,McMaster University. 3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly "Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics"),McMaster University Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute,St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice. CONCLUSIONS: Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.
OBJECTIVES: Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice. CONCLUSIONS: Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.
Authors: Rosmin Esmail; Fiona M Clement; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Daniel J Niven; Heather M Hanson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Adriënne H Rotteveel; Mattijs S Lambooij; Joline J A van de Rijt; Job van Exel; Karel G M Moons; G Ardine de Wit Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Livia Lovato Pires de Lemos; Augusto Afonso Guerra Júnior; Marisa Santos; Carlos Magliano; Isabela Diniz; Kathiaja Souza; Ramon Gonçalves Pereira; Juliana Alvares; Brian Godman; Marion Bennie; Ivan Ricardo Zimmermann; Vânia Crisitna Canuto Dos Santos; Clarice Alegre Pretramale; Francisco de Assis Acurcio Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.981