Home-based blood transfusion therapy: A systematic review.

Home care is a healthcare alternative to hospitalisation. Different types of procedures are performed at home care services, such as home transfusion of blood products. However, home blood transfusion is not fully implemented and there is a great lack of knowledge about it. The aims of this study were thus to assess the safety and effectiveness of home blood transfusions and patient acceptance and satisfaction. A systematic literature review was conducted in the main biomedical databases. We included all studies that covered patients who had received a home blood transfusion, regardless of their baseline diagnosis. The literature search yielded 290 studies, 14 of which were included in this study as they met the predefined criteria. The main patient profile of a home-transfusion recipient was a person with anaemia associated with other diseases. Overall incidence of severe adverse events was 0.05%. No studies evaluated the effectiveness of home versus hospital transfusions. One study showed that 51% of patients would be willing to receive home transfusions. Home blood transfusion appears to be a feasible, safe, and well-accepted procedure. Existing studies are of low quality, however, and this is an important limitation when it comes to drawing definitive benefit-risk conclusions.

The Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System (RedETS).

Earlier activities on health technology assessment (HTA) started in Spain around 1984, with the creation of a National Advisory Board on HTA, and the development of national and regional HTA organizations in the early 1990s. In 2012, the Spanish Health Ministry established the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS); funded at national level and including all public HTA organizations at national and regional levels. RedETSis focused on the assessment of nondrug health technologies to inform the revision (approval and funding or disinvestment) of the Benefit Portfolio of the Spanish NHS. In parallel with European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), RedETS has been setting-up and sharing common procedures and methodological guidelines to ensure effective cooperation and mutual recognition of the scientific and technical production in HTA. The output of RedETS is fifty to sixty annual reports, including the production of full HTA reports, Clinical Practice Guidelines, methodological guidance reports, relative effectiveness assessments, tools to support shared decision making between patients and healthcare professionals, and monitoring studies. The HTA assessments requested by the Regional Health Authorities are the biggest component of the annual RedETS working plan. These assessment needs are identified according to a yearly process and prioritized by a Commission composed of representatives from all Spanish regions with the aid of the PRITEC tool. The objectives of this study are to report and update the normative and organizational state of HTA in Spain; describing noteworthy advances witnessed over the past 10 years, as well as discussing existing challenges.

Priorización de intervenciones sanitarias. Revisión de criterios, enfoques y rol de las agencias de evaluación / Priority setting of health interventions. Review of criteria, approaches and role of assessment agencies

Objetivo: El presente trabajo surge con el propósito de desarrollar una metodología explícita para la selección de prioridades sanitarias que apoye la toma de decisiones sobre las tecnologías a evaluar de cara a su inclusión en la cartera de servicios del Sistema Nacional de Salud. El objetivo principal es identificar y analizar los criterios, procesos y marcos conceptuales empleados para la priorización de intervenciones sanitarias en el ámbito nacional e internacional. Método: Se ha llevado a cabo una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura. Para ello, se ha buscado en las principales bases de datos biomédicas y se han revisado las páginas web de las principales agencias de evaluación, entre otras fuentes. Resultados: En términos generales, se encontró que no existen criterios universales ni procedimientos estándar para la asignación de prioridades, aunque se han identificado algunos acuerdos y tendencias comunes respecto a aspectos fundamentales (criterios, modelos y estrategias, actores clave, etc.). Globalmente se identificaron ocho dominios críticos: 1) necesidad de la intervención; 2) resultados en salud; 3) tipo de beneficio de la intervención; 4) consecuencias económicas; 5) conocimiento existente sobre la intervención/calidad e incertidumbre de la evidencia; 6) implementación y complejidad de la intervención/factibilidad; 7) prioridad, justicia y ética; y 8) contexto global. Conclusiones: La revisión proporciona un análisis detallado de los aspectos relevantes y ofrece recomendaciones clave para el desarrollo de un marco de priorización nacional. Se plantea que esta información podría ser útil para diferentes organizaciones públicas que pretendan establecer prioridades sanitarias (AU)

Objective: This study was carried out to develop an explicit health priority setting methodology to support decision-making regarding the technologies to be assessed for inclusion in the National Health Service service portfolio. The primary objective is to identify and analyse the criteria, approaches and conceptual frameworks used for national/international priority setting. Method: An exhaustive review of the literature was carried out. For this purpose, a search of the main biomedical databases was performed and assessment agency websites were reviewed, among other sources. Results: In general terms, it was found that there are no standardised criteria for priority setting, although some consensus and common trends have been identified regarding key elements (criteria, models and strategies, key actors, etc.). Globally, 8 key domains were identified: 1) need for intervention; 2) health outcomes; 3) type of benefit of the intervention; 4) economic consequences; 5) existing knowledge on the intervention/quality of and uncertainties regarding the evidence; 6) implementation and complexity of the intervention/feasibility; 7) priority, justice and ethics; and 8) overall context. Conclusions: The review provides a thorough analysis of the relevant issues and offers key recommendations regarding considerations for developing a national prioritisation framework. Findings are envisioned to be useful for different public organisations that are aiming to establish healthcare priorities (AU)

[Priority setting of health interventions. Review of criteria, approaches and role of assessment agencies]. / Priorización de intervenciones sanitarias. Revisión de criterios, enfoques y rol de las agencias de evaluación.

OBJECTIVE: This study was carried out to develop an explicit health priority setting methodology to support decision-making regarding the technologies to be assessed for inclusion in the National Health Service service portfolio. The primary objective is to identify and analyse the criteria, approaches and conceptual frameworks used for national/international priority setting. METHOD: An exhaustive review of the literature was carried out. For this purpose, a search of the main biomedical databases was performed and assessment agency websites were reviewed, among other sources. RESULTS: In general terms, it was found that there are no standardised criteria for priority setting, although some consensus and common trends have been identified regarding key elements (criteria, models and strategies, key actors, etc.). Globally, 8 key domains were identified: 1) need for intervention; 2) health outcomes; 3) type of benefit of the intervention; 4) economic consequences; 5) existing knowledge on the intervention/quality of and uncertainties regarding the evidence; 6) implementation and complexity of the intervention/feasibility; 7) priority, justice and ethics; and 8) overall context. CONCLUSIONS: The review provides a thorough analysis of the relevant issues and offers key recommendations regarding considerations for developing a national prioritisation framework. Findings are envisioned to be useful for different public organisations that are aiming to establish healthcare priorities.

Linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery for trigeminal neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery is accepted as an alternative for patients with refractory trigeminal neuralgia, but existing evidence is fundamentally based on the Gamma Knife, which is a specific device for intracranial neurosurgery, available in few facilities. Over the last decade it has been shown that the use of linear accelerators can achieve similar diagnostic accuracy and equivalent dose distribution. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of linear-accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of patients with refractory trigeminal neuralgia. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of the literature in the main electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane, Biomed Central, IBECS, IME, CRD) and reviewed grey literature. All original studies on the subject published in Spanish, French, English, and Portuguese were eligible for inclusion. The selection and critical assessment was carried out by 2 independent reviewers based on pre-defined criteria. In view of the impossibility of carrying out a pooled analysis, data were analyzed in a qualitative way. RESULTS: Eleven case series were included. In these, satisfactory pain relief (BIN I-IIIb or reduction in pain = 50) was achieved in 75% to 95.7% of the patients treated. The mean time to relief from pain ranged from 8.5 days to 3.8 months. The percentage of patients who presented with recurrences after one year of follow-up ranged from 5% to 28.8%. Facial swelling or hypoesthesia, mostly of a mild-moderate grade appeared in 7.5% - 51.9% of the patients. Complete anaesthesia dolorosa was registered in only study (5.3%). Cases of hearing loss (2.5%), brainstem edema (5.8%), and neurotrophic keratoplasty (3.5%) were also isolated. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that stereotactic radiosurgery with linear accelerators could constitute an effective and safe therapeutic alternative for drug-resistant trigeminal neuralgia. However, existing studies leave important doubts as to optimal treatment doses or the therapeutic target, long-term recurrence, and do not help identify which subgroups of patients could most benefit from this technique. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of literature and clear lack of clarification for clinical utilization of this technique.

Post-introduction observation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Galicia (Spain).

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation constitutes an example of a technology introduced into the Galician Health Care System basket and subjected to a post-introduction observational study after coverage. This paper aims to describe the process and results of this experience, illustrating the main challenges and opportunities in using these studies for supporting decision making. METHODS: The study protocol was developed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of experts from the Galician HTA Agency (avalia-t), interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Together they agreed on the information that was relevant and feasible for collection, and planned the study design, data collection and analysis of results. RESULTS: During the 1-year recruitment period, 94 patients underwent percutaneous aortic valve replacement in the three authorized centres. Implantation rate and prosthesis models differed substantially across the centres. Overall, procedural success rate was 96.8% and hospital mortality was 7.4%. Complications during post-surgical admission were recorded in 40.4% of patients. Moderate residual aortic regurgitation was observed in 10% of patients, and the procedure was associated with a stroke rate of 3.3% at 30 days and 5.3% at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Post-introduction observation has made it feasible to determine the use of this procedure within the SERGAS context and has enabled the assessment of performance in real-life conditions. The proposed strategic actions and interventions have been drawn up based upon the collective judgement of a group of experienced professionals, and have served to establish recommendations on further research that would be required to optimize health benefits.

Developing a prioritized list of innovative technologies: the Spanish experience.

OBJECTIVES: Selecting technologies for formal assessment poses a great challenge to health technology assessment agencies. This study aims to contribute to the creation of a reference framework for the identification, filtering, and prioritization of new and emerging technologies which could be demanded in clinical practice within the next 1-2 years. METHODS: Technologies were identified using a prevalidated systematic Medline strategy. They were classified by medical specialty and then sent to selected professionals belonging to the medical units or areas responsible for their application, until there was a minimum of three participants per health care setting. A self-administered questionnaire was drawn up and health professionals were asked to: (1) assess the degree of innovation of the technologies, and (11) score their foreseeable clinical impact on the basis of predefined prioritization criteria (n = 4). Intra-rater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The Medline search yielded 246 potentially relevant technologies. When analyzed by health care area or unit, sixty-eight were deemed to be high-impact innovative technologies (median score >6), with ICCs ranging from 0.03 to 0.83. The final list resulting from the aggregate analysis comprised fifty-one technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This study constitutes an innovative contribution to horizon scanning, providing a systematic and reproducible basis for the identification and selection of relevant new and emerging technologies based on the views and values of health professionals involved in their use. In our opinion, the current proposal could be helpful and useful to many other organizations worldwide, serving to complement already existing strategies.