Srobana Ghosh, C S Pramesh, Manju Sengar, Priya Ranganathan, Francis Ruiz, Tabassum Wadasadawala, Prakash Nayak, Jayashree Thorat, Apurva Ashok, Malkeet Singh, Abha Mehndiratta, Cassandra Nemzoff, Hiral Anil Shah
{"title":"Exploring adaptive health technology assessment for evaluating 10 cancer interventions: insights and lessons from a pilot study in India.","authors":"Srobana Ghosh, C S Pramesh, Manju Sengar, Priya Ranganathan, Francis Ruiz, Tabassum Wadasadawala, Prakash Nayak, Jayashree Thorat, Apurva Ashok, Malkeet Singh, Abha Mehndiratta, Cassandra Nemzoff, Hiral Anil Shah","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) is a valuable tool for informing the efficient allocation of resources in healthcare. However, the resource-intensive nature of HTA can limit its application, especially in low-resource settings. Adapting HTA processes by assessing the available international evidence offers a pragmatic approach to provide evidence for decision-making where resources are constrained.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study piloted an adaptive HTA (aHTA) method to evaluate 10 cancer interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We arranged a joint collaboration with the International Decision Support Initiative and the National Cancer Grid in India to form a working group of clinicians and health economists. We conducted a rapid review of HTA reports and economic evaluations for ten prioritised common cancer interventions for breast, lung, and head and neck cancers. We extracted data on cost-effectiveness, conducted a price benchmarking analysis, estimated treatment costs and calculated the treatment's share of the national insurance family allowance. Finally, we determined through qualitative appraisal whether the intervention would likely to be considered cost-effective in the Indian context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 10 interventions assessed, 9 had sufficient evidence to make determinations on the likely cost-effectiveness. Three were potentially cost-effective (one after a price discount and another by using the generic price), while five were not, and one was only cost-effective in a subgroup. One intervention required a full HTA due to remaining uncertainty. Information on the likely cost-effectiveness, clinical and safety benefits, and treatment costs was consistently found through publicly available evidence. Assessment methods were modified slightly across the 10 interventions, including expanding the data extraction criteria, updating the calculations and broadening the evidence retrieval.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The aHTA method is a feasible resource-sensitive alternative to traditional HTA for informing decision-making in resource-constrained settings when ample international data on cost-effectiveness for a given topic is available.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112490","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a valuable tool for informing the efficient allocation of resources in healthcare. However, the resource-intensive nature of HTA can limit its application, especially in low-resource settings. Adapting HTA processes by assessing the available international evidence offers a pragmatic approach to provide evidence for decision-making where resources are constrained.
Objective: This study piloted an adaptive HTA (aHTA) method to evaluate 10 cancer interventions.
Methods: We arranged a joint collaboration with the International Decision Support Initiative and the National Cancer Grid in India to form a working group of clinicians and health economists. We conducted a rapid review of HTA reports and economic evaluations for ten prioritised common cancer interventions for breast, lung, and head and neck cancers. We extracted data on cost-effectiveness, conducted a price benchmarking analysis, estimated treatment costs and calculated the treatment's share of the national insurance family allowance. Finally, we determined through qualitative appraisal whether the intervention would likely to be considered cost-effective in the Indian context.
Results: Of the 10 interventions assessed, 9 had sufficient evidence to make determinations on the likely cost-effectiveness. Three were potentially cost-effective (one after a price discount and another by using the generic price), while five were not, and one was only cost-effective in a subgroup. One intervention required a full HTA due to remaining uncertainty. Information on the likely cost-effectiveness, clinical and safety benefits, and treatment costs was consistently found through publicly available evidence. Assessment methods were modified slightly across the 10 interventions, including expanding the data extraction criteria, updating the calculations and broadening the evidence retrieval.
Conclusion: The aHTA method is a feasible resource-sensitive alternative to traditional HTA for informing decision-making in resource-constrained settings when ample international data on cost-effectiveness for a given topic is available.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence.
BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.