Deepshikha Sharma1, Arun Kumar Aggarwal1, Laura E Downey2, Shankar Prinja3. 1. Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India. 2. School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK. 3. Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India. shankarprinja@gmail.com.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Gihan H Elsisi; Zoltán Kaló; Randa Eldessouki; Mahmoud D Elmahdawy; Amr Saad; Samah Ragab; Amr M Elshalakani; Sherif Abaza Journal: Value Health Reg Issues Date: 2013-09-13
Authors: Ashley A Leech; Pei-Jung Lin; Brittany D'Cruz; Susan K Parsons; Tara A Lavelle Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Henri B Wolff; Venetia Qendri; Natalia Kunst; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 2.749