ABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Analizar la calidad y el impacto de los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios realizados por la Red de Agencias de Evaluación (RedETS). MÉTODO: Los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios se identificaron buscando entre los informes de evaluación de la base de datos de la web de RedETS (2006-2016). La calidad se evaluó con un listado de verificación de calidad de RedETS, y su impacto, comparando resultados de coste-utilidad y la inclusión en la cartera común de servicios del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Se analizó la inclusión en la cartera común si la ratio de coste-efectividad incremental superaba o no los 25.000 por año de vida ajustado por calidad. RESULTADOS: Se encontraron 25 análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios (12 de coste-utilidad, 10 de coste-efectividad y 3 de ambos). De ellos, 15 estudios con 19 ratios de coste-utilidad seleccionados cumplían al menos 18 de 25 criterios de verificación. Asimismo, 12 de los 15 estudios cumplían 18 de los 25 criterios. Sobre el impacto, en 6 de los 19 resultados se incluyó el producto en cartera aunque la ratio superó los 25.000 por año de vida ajustado por calidad. En tres casos se está en proceso de reevaluación; en otro, de replanteamiento una vez realizados los informes de eficacia-seguridad de nuevos dispositivos; y en dos casos se señala en la cartera que debe seguirse un protocolo. CONCLUSIONES: La mayoría de los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios analizados cumplieron casi todos los ítems del listado de verificación y, por tanto, fueron exhaustivos. Estos análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios fueron coherentes con el marco de toma de decisiones para manejar eficientemente la cartera del Sistema Nacional de Salud
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality and impact of cost-utility evaluations of medical devices carried out by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies (RedETS). METHOD: The cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were identified by searching the evaluation reports of the RedETS website database (2006-2016). Quality and its impact were evaluated with a RedETS quality checklist, comparing cost-utility results and inclusion in the portfolio of common services of the National Health System. The portfolio inclusion status was analysed considering whether the cost-effectiveness incremental ratio was or was not less than 25,000/quality adjusted life years. RESULTS: 25 cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were found (12 cost-utility, 10 cost-effectiveness and 3 both). Fifteen selected cost-utility studies with 19 cost-utility ratios met at least 18 of 25 verification criteria. Also, 12 of the 15 studies met 19 of the 25 criteria. On the impact, in 6 out of the 19 results, the product was included in the portfolio even though the ratio exceeded 25,000/quality adjusted life years. There are three cases undergoing a re-evaluation process, another case being reconsidered once the efficacy-safety of new devices has been reported and in two cases the portfolio states that protocols are required. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cost-utility evaluations of medical devices published by RedETS fulfil most of the items on the checklist and, therefore, were thorough. These cost-utility evaluations of medical devices are consistent with the decision-making framework to efficiently manage the National Health System portfolio
Subject(s)
Humans , Access to Essential Medicines and Health Technologies , Equipment and Supplies/economics , Purchasing, Hospital/economics , Cost Efficiency Analysis , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Hospital Costs/classification , Economics, Hospital/organization & administration , Health Evaluation/methods , Databases as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Checklist/classification , Costs and Cost Analysis/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality and impact of cost-utility evaluations of medical devices carried out by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies (RedETS). METHOD: The cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were identified by searching the evaluation reports of the RedETS website database (2006-2016). Quality and its impact were evaluated with a RedETS quality checklist, comparing cost-utility results and inclusion in the portfolio of common services of the National Health System. The portfolio inclusion status was analysed considering whether the cost-effectiveness incremental ratio was or was not less than 25,000/quality adjusted life years. RESULTS: 25 cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were found (12 cost-utility, 10 cost-effectiveness and 3 both). Fifteen selected cost-utility studies with 19 cost-utility ratios met at least 18 of 25 verification criteria. Also, 12 of the 15 studies met 19 of the 25 criteria. On the impact, in 6 out of the 19 results, the product was included in the portfolio even though the ratio exceeded 25,000/quality adjusted life years. There are three cases undergoing a re-evaluation process, another case being reconsidered once the efficacy-safety of new devices has been reported and in two cases the portfolio states that protocols are required. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cost-utility evaluations of medical devices published by RedETS fulfil most of the items on the checklist and, therefore, were thorough. These cost-utility evaluations of medical devices are consistent with the decision-making framework to efficiently manage the National Health System portfolio.