Campolina Alessandro G, Rozman Luciana M, Decimoni Tassia C, Leandro Roseli, Novaes Hillegonda M D, De Soárez Patrícia Coelho
Center for Translational Research in Oncology, Cancer Institute of Sao Paulo (ICESP), University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av. Dr. Arnaldo 251, 8 andar, São Paulo, SP, 01246-000, Brazil.
National Institute for Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS/CNPq), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):163-172. doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x.
Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil.
The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil.
We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis.
Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs.
Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.
巴西成本效用分析(CUA)的质量和数量鲜为人知。
本研究的目的是对巴西已发表的医疗技术成本效用分析进行系统评价。
我们对1980年至2013年期间发表在MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS(拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学文献)、SciELO(科学电子图书馆在线)、NHS EED(英国国家卫生服务经济评价数据库)、HTA(卫生技术评估)数据库、科学网、Scopus、Bireme(地区医学图书馆)、BVS ECOS(巴西虚拟卫生图书馆卫生经济数据库)和SISREBRATS(巴西卫生技术评估网络信息系统)上的经济评价研究进行了系统评价。如果文章根据Drummond等人设计的分类属于成本效用分析,则将其纳入。两名独立评审员筛选文章的相关性并进行数据提取。分歧通过讨论或与第三位评审员协商解决。我们进行了定性叙述性综合分析。
在与巴西相关的535项卫生经济评价(HEE)中,只有40项是成本效用分析,因此纳入分析。大多数研究遵循报告质量的方法指南,77.5%使用质量调整生命年(QALY)作为健康结果。在这些研究中,51.6%没有报告用于得出结果偏好的人群,45.2%使用了特定人群,如专家意见。58.1%的这些研究没有报告偏好引出方法。大多数(80.6%)研究没有报告用于得出健康状态估值的工具,也没有出版物报告关税(或偏好权重)是国内的还是国际的。没有研究提及用于估计QALY的方法。
许多已发表的巴西成本效用研究遵循卫生经济评价的关键推荐通用方法;然而,QALY计算的使用远未达到当前国际标准。健康偏好研究的发展有助于提高巴西卫生技术评估报告的质量。