Methodological characteristics of health technology assessments developed in Peru, 2019-2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35434/rcmhnaaa.2022.15Supl.%201.1435Keywords:
Biomedical Technology Assessment, Systematic Review, Decision Making, PeruAbstract
Background: Limitations have been reported to comply with good methodological practices in the development of health technology assessments (HTA). Therefore, the objective of the present study was to describe the methodological characteristics of the HTAs carried out in Peru, between 2019-2021. Methods: Descriptive study. We are looking for Peruvian institutions that prepare HTAs whose reports are accessible to the public. We collected the total number of HTAs produced by these institutions per year, and we collected the characteristics of the HTAs produced during the 2019-2021 period. Results: Three Peruvian institutions developed at least three public HTAs between 2019-2021: The Institute for the Evaluation of Technologies in Health and Research (IETSI) (n=142), the Unit for the Analysis and Generation of Evidence in Public Health (UNAGESP) (n=60), and the National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases (INEN) (n=40). The HTAs of UNAGESP did not reach a decision, while 35.9% of those of IETSI and 70.0% of those of INEN concluded in favor of the evaluated technology. All STDs explained the methodology used and performed systematic searches. However, few presented the risk of bias assessment of the included studies (17.4%), the certainty of the evidence (4.6%), or the benefits and harms per outcome (14.4%). None of the HTAs carried out cost studies or made explicit the methodology used to reach the decision. Conclusions: The HTAs evaluated presented favorable methodological aspects and certain shortcomings (in topics such as the report in the evaluation of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, presentation of benefits and harms by outcome, and explanation of the methodology used to make decisions).
Downloads
Metrics
References
O'Rourke B, Oortwijn W, Schuller T. The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2020;36(3):187-90. doi: 10.1017/s0266462320000215
Sharma M, Teerawattananon Y, Luz A, Li R, Rattanavipapong W, Dabak S. Institutionalizing Evidence-Informed Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: Lessons From Indonesia. Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. 2020;57:46958020924920. doi: 10.1177/0046958020924920
Tantivess S, Chalkidou K, Tritasavit N, Teerawattananon Y. Health Technology Assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: Experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE. F1000Research. 2017;6:2119. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13180.1
Barrenechea Loo M. Desarrollo de la evaluación de tecnologías en salud en algunos países de Latinoamérica. Revista Cubana de Salud Pública. 2017;43:624-9. doi: No disponible
Ministerio de Salud. RM Nº 190-2020-MINSA: Conforman la Red Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (RENETSA) y aprueban otras disposiciones. 2020.
Vallejos C, Bustos L, de La Puente C, Reveco R, Velásquez M, Zaror C. Principales aspectos metodológicos en la Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. Revista médica de Chile. 2014;142:16-21. doi:
Wilsdon T, Serota A. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of Health Technology Assessment.2011.
World Health Organization. Regional Office for E, European Observatory on Health S, Policies, Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: an introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2005.
Moulton D. New guidelines for evaluating health tech. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 2017;189(18):E675. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1095415
Tantivess S, Chalkidou K, Tritasavit N, Teerawattananon Y. Health Technology Assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: Experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE. F1000Research. 2017;6:2119-. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13180.1
NIPHNO [Internet]. Experiences and perspectives with regard to use of the GRADE approach to evaluating the certainty (quality) of evidence within the production of EUnetHTA assessments; 2018. Disponible en: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Appendix-2_Report-about-experiences-and-views-about-GRADE-within-EUnetHTA.pdf.
Yuba TY, Novaes HMD, de Soárez PC. Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations. Health research policy and systems. 2018;16(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0319-8
Carroll C, Kaltenthaler E. Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology. 2018;18(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0498-6
EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 WP [Internet]. HTA Core Model Version 3.0; 2016. Disponible en: http://www.corehta.info/model/HTACoreModel3.0.pdf.
Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B. What's in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (inahta). International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2014;30(4):430-7. doi: 10.1017/s0266462314000543
Siverskog J, Henriksson M. On the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in healthcare priority setting. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2021;37:e23. doi: 10.1017/s0266462321000015
Caro JJ, Brazier JE, Karnon J, Kolominsky-Rabas P, McGuire AJ, Nord E, et al. Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away? PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(3):293-9. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0742-2
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;336(7650):924-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Chu DK, Golden DBK, Guyatt GH. Translating Evidence to Optimize Patient Care Using GRADE. The journal of allergy and clinical immunology In practice. 2021;9(12):4221-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.09.035
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(4):401-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;353:i2016. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2016
Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial2019. 205-28 p.
Trowman R, Powers A, Ollendorf DA. Considering and communicating uncertainty in health technology assessment. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2021;37(1):e74. doi: 10.1017/s0266462321000453
Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, Diaby V, Castro H, Cleemput I, et al. Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2019;22(11):1283-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014
Pichon-Riviere A, Soto NC, Augustovski FA, García Martí S, Sampietro-Colom L. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias para la toma de decisiones en Latinoamérica: principios de buenas prácticas. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública. 2018;41:e138. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2017.138
Simões Corrêa Galendi J, Caramori CA, Lemmen C, Müller D, Stock S. Expectations for the Development of Health Technology Assessment in Brazil. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(22). doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211912
Ministerio de Salud. RM Nº 414-2015 - MINSA: Documento técnico: metodología para la elaboración de guías de práctica clínica2015.
Teerawattananon Y, Painter C, Dabak S, Ottersen T, Gopinathan U, Chola L, et al. Avoiding health technology assessment: a global survey of reasons for not using health technology assessment in decision making. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2021;19(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12962-021-00308-1
Hogervorst MA, Vreman RA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Goettsch WG. Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies. Value in Health. 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1356
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Alvaro Taype-Rondan, David R. Soriano-Moreno, Alvaro Quincho-Lopez, Raisa N. Martinez-Rivera, Jhonatan R. Mejia, Raul Timaná-Ruiz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
