Valor de la hemodiálisis concertada y la hospitalaria mediante un análisis de decisión multicriterio / Value of concerted and hospital hemodialysis through a multi-criteria decision analysis

Objetivo Evaluar el valor de la prestación de servicios de diálisis concertada frente a la hospitalaria para el tratamiento de la enfermedad renal crónica en España mediante la metodología de análisis de decisión multicriterio. Método Se utilizó el marco de evaluación EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) para el cálculo del valor estimado de ambos modelos de prestación de la diálisis (concertada vs. hospitalaria) mediante un taller virtual en el que participaron diferentes perfiles: directivos y gestores, profesionales y responsables de unidades y representantes de pacientes y familiares. Las puntuaciones se combinaron mediante un modelo lineal aditivo, que combinó la ponderación del modelo con la puntuación individual de los criterios, y cada valor se transformó a una escala entre el 0 y 1. Resultados La estimación del valor para la diálisis concertada fue de 0,29 (DE: ±0,2) y de 0,39 (DE: ±0,2) para la diálisis hospitalaria. Todos los perfiles otorgaron un mayor valor a la hemodiálisis hospitalaria. El mayor valor para la diálisis hospitalaria fue de los pacientes (0,44); el menor valor medio fue de los directivos (0,36) y el rango para la diálisis concertada estuvo entre los pacientes (0,31) y los cargos intermedios (0,27). Conclusiones La hemodiálisis hospitalaria obtuvo un mayor valor que la diálisis concertada. En general, los panelistas afirmaron que resulta un ejercicio útil e interesante y que, en cierta medida, aporta seguridad en la toma de decisiones, ya que permite ordenar, racionalizar y considerar, de manera explícita y transparente, los diferentes criterios involucrados (AU)

Objective To evaluate the value of the provision of contracted versus hospital dialysis services for the treatment of chronic kidney disease in Spain using the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. Method The EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) evaluation framework was used to calculate the estimated value of both dialysis delivery models (arranged vs. hospital) through a virtual workshop in which different profiles participated: directors and managers, professionals and heads of units and representatives of patients and relatives. The scores were combined using an additive lineal model, which combined the weight of the model with the individual score of the criteria, and each value was transformed to a scale between 0 and 1. Results The estimated value for arranged dialysis was 0.29 (DS: ±0.2) and 0.39 (DS: ±0.2) for hospital dialysis. All profiles gave a higher value to hospital hemodialysis compared to contracted hemodialysis. The highest value for hospital dialysis was for patients (0.44), with the lowest mean value for directors (0.36) and the range for arranged dialysis being between patients (0.31) and intermediate positions (0.27). Conclusions Hospital hemodialysis obtained a higher value than concerted dialysis. In general, the panelists affirmed that it is a useful and interesting exercise and that, to a certain extent, it provides security in decision-making, since it allows ordering, rationalizing and considering, in an explicit and transparent manner, the different criteria involved (AU)

Value of concerted and hospital hemodialysis through a multi-criteria decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of the provision of contracted versus hospital dialysis services for the treatment of chronic kidney disease in Spain using the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. METHOD: The EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) evaluation framework was used to calculate the estimated value of both dialysis delivery models (arranged vs. hospital) through a virtual workshop in which different profiles participated: directors and managers, professionals and heads of units and representatives of patients and relatives. The scores were combined using an additive lineal model, which combined the weight of the model with the individual score of the criteria, and each value was transformed to a scale between 0 and 1. RESULTS: The estimated value for arranged dialysis was 0.29 (DS: ±0.2) and 0.39 (DS: ±0.2) for hospital dialysis. All profiles gave a higher value to hospital hemodialysis compared to contracted hemodialysis. The highest value for hospital dialysis was for patients (0.44), with the lowest mean value for directors (0.36) and the range for arranged dialysis being between patients (0.31) and intermediate positions (0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital hemodialysis obtained a higher value than concerted dialysis. In general, the panelists affirmed that it is a useful and interesting exercise and that, to a certain extent, it provides security in decision-making, since it allows ordering, rationalizing and considering, in an explicit and transparent manner, the different criteria involved.

Evidencia sobre la externalización de los servicios de diálisis: Una revisión de alcance / Evidence on outsourcing dialysis services: A scoping review

Introducción: La enfermedad renal crónica representa un importante problema de salud, tanto por su elevada incidencia y prevalencia, como por su importante morbimortalidad y coste socioeconómico. Objetivo: Comparar la efectividad y consecuencias económicas de la diálisis concertada frente a la diálisis hospitalaria. Metodología: Revisión de alcance, para lo cual se consultaron diferentes bases de datos, mediante términos controlados y libres. Se incluyeron aquellos artículos que comparasen la diálisis concertada frente a la hospitalaria en términos de efectividad. Igualmente, se incluyeron aquellas publicaciones que comparasen, en el ámbito español, el coste entre ambas modalidades de prestación de servicios y las tarifas de precios públicos de las diferentes Comunidades Autónomas. Resultados: En esta revisión se incluyeron 11 artículos: ocho sobre comparación de la efectividad, todos ellos en EE. UU. y tres sobre costes. Se observó una mayor tasa de hospitalización en aquellos centros concertados, pero no se observaron diferencias en mortalidad. Además, una mayor competencia entre proveedores se asoció a menores tasas de hospitalización. Los estudios de costes revisados muestran que la hemodiálisis hospitalaria es más costosa que en centros concertados, debido a los costes de estructura. Los datos de las tarifas públicas de las diferentes Comunidades Autónomas muestran una amplia heterogeneidad en el pago de los conciertos. Conclusiones: La coexistencia en España de centros públicos y concertados, la variabilidad en la prestación y costes de las técnicas de diálisis y la escasa evidencia sobre la efectividad de la externalización del tratamiento ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de seguir potenciando estrategias que redunden en una mejora de la atención a la enfermedad renal crónica. (AU)

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease represents an important health problem, due to its high incidence and prevalence, as well as its significant morbidity and mortality and socioeconomic cost. Aims: Compare the effectiveness and economic consequences of outsourcing versus hospital dialysis. Method: A scoping review, for which different databases were consulted, using controlled and free terms. Those articles that compared concerted versus in hospital dialysis in terms of effectiveness were included. Likewise, those publications that compared, in the Spanish field, the cost between both modes of service provision and the public price rates of the different Autonomous Communities were included. Results: 11 articles were included in this review: 8 on comparison of effectiveness, all of them in the USA, and 3 on costs. A higher rate of hospitalization was observed in subsidized centers, but no differences in mortality were observed. Additionally, greater competition among providers was associated with lower hospitalization rates. The cost studies reviewed show that hospital hemodialysis is more expensive than in subsidized centers, due to the structural costs. The data of the public rates of the different Autonomous Communities show a wide heterogeneity in the payment of the concerts. Conclusions: The coexistence in Spain of public and subsidized centers, the variability in the provision and costs of dialysis techniques, and the low of evidence on the effectiveness of outsourcing treatment show all the need to continue promoting strategies that result in improvement in the care for chronic kidney disease. (AU)

Evidence on outsourcing dialysis services: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease represents an important health problem, due to its high incidence and prevalence, as well as its significant morbidity and mortality and socioeconomic cost. AIMS: compare the effectiveness and economic consequences of outsourcing versus hospital dialysis. METHOD: A scoping review, for which different databases were consulted, using controlled and free terms. Those articles that compared concerted versus in hospital dialysis in terms of effectiveness were included. Likewise, those publications that compared, in the Spanish field, the cost between both modes of service provision and the public price rates of the different Autonomous Communities were included. RESULTS: 11 articles were included in this review: 8 on comparison of effectiveness, all of them in the USA, and 3 on costs. A higher rate of hospitalization was observed in subsidized centers, but no differences in mortality were observed. Additionally, greater competition among providers was associated with lower hospitalization rates. The cost studies reviewed show that hospital hemodialysis is more expensive than in subsidized centers, due to the structural costs. The data of the public rates of the different Autonomous Communities show a wide heterogeneity in the payment of the concerts. CONCLUSIONS: the coexistence in Spain of public and subsidized centers, the variability in the provision and costs of dialysis techniques, and the low of evidence on the effectiveness of outsourcing treatment show all the need to continue promoting strategies that result in improvement in the care for Chronic Kidney Disease.

Optimal start in dialysis shows increased survival in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the survival among patients with chronic kidney disease who had optimal starts of renal replacement therapy, dialysis or hemodialysis, with patients who had suboptimal starts. METHODS: A retrospective cohort consisting of >18 year-old patients who started renal replacement therapy, using peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, in any public hospital or associated center of the Andalusian Public Health System, between the 1st of January of 2006 and the 15th of March of 2017. The optimal start was defined when all the following criteria were met: a planned dialysis start, a minimum of six-month follow-up by a nephrologist, and a first dialysis method coinciding with the one registered at 90 days. The information was obtained from the registry of the Information System of the Transplant Autonomic Coordination of Andalusia. RESULTS: A total of 10,692 patients were studied. 4,377 (40.9%) of these patients died. A total of 4,937 patients (46.17%) achieved optimal starts of renal replacement therapy and showed higher survival rates (HR 0.669; 95% CI 0.628-0.712) in the multivariate analysis of Cox regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an optimal start of renal replacement therapy have a greater survival than those who had a non-optimal start. Therefore, the necessary measures should be encouraged to increase the optimal start of the patient in dialysis.

HTA and decision-making processes in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe: Results from a survey.

OBJECTIVE: To gain knowledge and insights on health technology assessment (HTA) and decision-making processes in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe (CESEE) countries. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed. Based on the literature, a questionnaire was developed in a multi-stage process. The questionnaire was arranged according to 5 broad domains: (i) introduction/country settings; (ii) use of HTA in the country; (iii) decision-making process; (iv) implementation of decisions; and (v) HTA and decision-making: future challenges. Potential survey respondents were identified through literature review-with a total of 118 contacts from the 24 CESEE countries. From March to July 2014, the survey was administered via e-mail. RESULTS: A total of 22 questionnaires were received generating an 18.6% response rate, including 4 responses indicating that their institutions had no involvement in HTA. Most of the CESEE countries have entities under government mandates with advisory functions and different responsibilities for decision-making, but mainly in charge of the reimbursement and pricing of medicines. Other areas where discrepancies across countries were found include criteria for selecting technologies to be assessed, stakeholder involvement, evidence requirements, use of economic evaluation, and timeliness of HTA. CONCLUSIONS: A number of CESEE countries have created formal decision-making processes for which HTA is used. However, there is a high level of heterogeneity related to the degree of development of HTA structures, and the methods and processes followed. Further studies focusing on the countries from which information is scarcer and on the HTA of health technologies other than medicines are warranted. CLASSIFICATION: Reviews/comparative analyses.

Health technology assessment process of a cardiovascular medical device in four different settings.

AIM: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool to help the decision-making process. The aim is to describe methods and processes used in the reimbursement decision making for drug-eluting stents (DES) in four different settings. METHODS: DES as a technology under study was selected according to different criteria, all of them agreed by a working group. A survey of key informants was designed. RESULTS: DES was evaluated following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, scope for improvement was observed in relation to the data considered for the final decision, the transparency and inclusiveness of the process as well as in the methods employed. CONCLUSION: An attempt to describe the HTA processes of a well-known medical device.

Adoption of the HPV vaccine: a case study of three emerging countries.

BACKGROUND: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has recently attracted considerable attention in emerging countries, due to its potential to reduce the impact of HPV-related diseases. This case study sheds new light about the variety of HTA arrangements, methods and processes involved in the adoption and use of HPV vaccines in a selected sample of central, eastern and southern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean, all of them emerging in the use of HTA. MATERIALS & METHODS: A multi-country case study was designed. Mixed methods, document review, semi-structured surveys and personal communication with experts, were used for data collection and triangulation. RESULTS: This study shows that common elements of good practice exist in the processes and methods used, with all countries arriving at the same appraisal recommendations. However, the influence of socio-politico-economic factors appears to be determinant on the final decisions and restrictions to access made. CONCLUSION: This case study intends to draw useful lessons for policymakers in emerging settings interested in the adoption of the HPV vaccine supported by evidence-informed processes, such as those offered by institutionalized HTA. Future studies are also recommended to elucidate the specific roles that social values and uncertainties play in vaccine decision-making across different societies.

Adoption of trastuzumab for breast cancer in four emerging countries in the use of health technology assessment: a case study.

AIM: To describe processes for the adoption of trastuzumab in four countries in the use of health technology assessment (HTA): Poland, Albania, Brazil and Colombia. MATERIALS & METHODS: Mixed methods were used for collection and triangulation of data. Data were examined following a conceptual framework connecting HTA process steps and key principles. RESULTS: Trastuzumab was generally assessed following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, areas of improvement were detected in terms of transparency and inclusiveness, as well as in methods used. The extent to which different criteria influenced decisions was unclear. CONCLUSION: This study covers an area in which information may not always be available, and sets the example for emerging countries interested in HTA. Further studies to gain a better understanding on decision-making across settings are warranted.