为评估10项癌症干预措施探索适应性卫生技术评估:来自印度试点研究的见解和教训。

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
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":"为评估10项癌症干预措施探索适应性卫生技术评估:来自印度试点研究的见解和教训。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:卫生技术评估(HTA)是一种有价值的工具,为卫生保健资源的有效分配提供信息。然而,HTA的资源密集型特性限制了其应用,特别是在资源匮乏的环境中。通过评估现有的国际证据来调整HTA程序,是一种务实的方法,可以为资源有限的决策提供证据。目的:本研究采用自适应HTA (aHTA)方法评价10种癌症干预措施。方法:我们安排了与国际决策支持倡议和印度国家癌症网格的联合合作,组成了一个由临床医生和卫生经济学家组成的工作组。我们对HTA报告和对乳腺癌、肺癌和头颈癌的10种优先常见癌症干预措施的经济评估进行了快速回顾。我们提取了有关成本效益的数据,进行了价格基准分析,估计了治疗成本,并计算了治疗在国民保险家庭津贴中的份额。最后,我们通过定性评估确定干预措施在印度的情况下是否可能被认为具有成本效益。结果:在评估的10项干预措施中,9项有足够的证据来确定可能的成本效益。其中三种具有潜在的成本效益(一种经过价格折扣,另一种使用通用价格),而五种没有,一种仅在一个子组中具有成本效益。由于仍然存在不确定性,一项干预需要进行完整的HTA。关于可能的成本效益、临床和安全益处以及治疗费用的信息一直是通过公开证据找到的。评估方法在10个干预措施中略有修改,包括扩展数据提取标准,更新计算和扩大证据检索。结论:aHTA方法是一种可行的资源敏感替代传统的HTA方法,在资源受限的情况下,当一个给定主题的成本效益有充足的国际数据可用时,可以为决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring adaptive health technology assessment for evaluating 10 cancer interventions: insights and lessons from a pilot study in India.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信