Suppr超能文献

比荷卢经济联盟倡议领域工作组卫生技术评估:成员国过去卫生技术评估的比较。

The Beneluxa Initiative domain task force health technology assessment: a comparison of member countries' past health technology assessments.

机构信息

National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland, ZIN), Diemen, The Netherlands.

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023 Jun 15;39(1):e44. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000338.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries' assessments and identify alignments and divergences.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars.

RESULTS

Only 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT-NL) to 188 (BE-IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62-74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较比荷卢经济联盟成员国的评估,并确定趋同和分歧。

方法

采用回顾性比较分析,调查(i)评估的适应症数量和类型(针对奥地利(AT)、比利时(BE)、爱尔兰(IE)和荷兰(NL));(ii)附加获益结论(针对 BE、IE 和 NL);以及(iii)结论差异的主要论据(针对 BE、IE 和 NL)。数据直接从机构代表和公开的 HTA 报告中检索。纳入了在 2016 年至 2020 年期间评估的药物的欧洲药品管理局批准的适应症,不包括兽药、仿制药和生物类似药。

结果

只有 44 个(10%)纳入的 444 个适应症由四个成员国全部评估。在任意两个国家之间,重叠度更高,从 63 个(AT-NL)到 188 个(BE-IE)。附加获益结论在 62-74%的适应症中完全一致,具体取决于比较的国家。在其余情况下,最常见的是观察到一个附加获益水平的差异(例如,更高与相等的相对效果)。相反的结果非常罕见:仅观察到三个案例(较低与较高的效果)。在评估七个结果不同的案例的潜在论据时,差异归因于证据和不确定性的权重略有差异,而不是评估本身内部的分歧。

结论

尽管欧洲 HTA 程序存在高度的可变性,但比荷卢经济联盟成员国之间的 HTA 合作是非常可行的,不太可能导致附加获益结论与国家程序中的附加获益结论有很大不同。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/567d/11570237/c141c0777b05/S0266462323000338_fig1.jpg

相似文献

2
Opportunities and Challenges in Cross-Country Collaboration: Insights from the Beneluxa Initiative.
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2024 Jul 9;12(3):144-157. doi: 10.3390/jmahp12030012. eCollection 2024 Sep.
4
Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals.
GMS Health Technol Assess. 2005 Nov 15;1:Doc09.
6
The Role of Regulator-Imposed Post-Approval Studies in Health Technology Assessments for Conditionally Approved Drugs.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 May 1;11(5):642-650. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.198.
7
[HTA goes Europe: European collaboration on joint assessment and methodological issues becomes reality].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2015;109(4-5):291-9. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.05.012. Epub 2015 Jul 3.
8
International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):813-30. doi: 10.2165/11536150-000000000-00000.

引用本文的文献

1
HTA Evidence in Rare Diseases: Just Rare or Also Special?
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Sep 9. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01538-4.
2
Opportunities and Challenges in Cross-Country Collaboration: Insights from the Beneluxa Initiative.
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2024 Jul 9;12(3):144-157. doi: 10.3390/jmahp12030012. eCollection 2024 Sep.
3
Access in all areas? a round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 4.
J Comp Eff Res. 2024 Jun;13(6):e240060. doi: 10.57264/cer-2024-0060. Epub 2024 Apr 22.

本文引用的文献

2
Forecasting drug utilization and expenditure: ten years of experience in Stockholm.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 11;20(1):410. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05170-0.
6
Proposal for a regulation on health technology assessment in Europe - opinions of policy makers, payers and academics from the field of HTA.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019 Jun;19(3):251-261. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2019.1575730. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
8
A Comparison of Reimbursement Recommendations by European HTA Agencies: Is There Opportunity for Further Alignment?
Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 30;8:384. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00384. eCollection 2017.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验