ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2021
Investigation of Factors Considered by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in Eight Countries.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study.Health policy OPEN · 2024Article
- Val (EU) xit: do we need an international ISPOR value flower?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- A review of HTA guidelines on societal and novel value elements.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Review
- Gene Therapy Evidence Generation and Economic Analysis: Pragmatic Considerations to Facilitate Fit-for-Purpose Health Technology Assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) organizations play a crucial role in optimizing healthcare resources, but the factors influencing decision making vary by country.
objectiveHTAs of cancer and hepatitis C drugs were evaluated across developed countries to understand differences in decision processes and criteria.
methodsThe HTA organizations evaluated are from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Canada and Japan. Economic evaluation types and 28 factors in the following categories were evaluated: clinical uncertainties/issues; disease/population/treatment consideration factors including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) special circumstances factors (e.g. end-of-life and innovation); and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) additional value elements. Qualitative and correspondence analyses were conducted to assess the differences across organizations.
resultsIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was evaluated in Canada, the UK, Australia and Japan. The highest observed clinical uncertainties were clinical benefits and comparator. For cancer drugs, correspondence analysis showed France, Australia, Canada and the UK to have common attributes observed, such as unmet needs and stakeholder persuasion. In addition, the UK reported end-of-life, issues around current treatment and innovation, whereas Germany reported manageable/insignificant adverse events more frequently. Finally, fear of contagion, equity and scientific spillover value elements were only observed in Australia.
conclusionAlthough clinical factors play a predominant role in the decision to reimburse medicine, HTA organizations consider additional aspects as well. If the methodology of HTA was clearly outlined, there would be more transparency in HTA systems leading to better understanding amongst stakeholders about decision making.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.