ReviewPharmacoEconomics2022
The Utility of a Rapid Review Evaluation Process to a National HTA Agency.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trials, trips, and tribulations: pathways for implementing psychedelic therapy in Ireland.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Unveiling trends: insights into medicines reimbursement recommendations and health technology management in Ireland (2018-2023).International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- HTA submission strategies and their associations with rollout times and type of HTA recommendation in Australia and Canada.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Observational
- Characteristics of published mini and rapid health technology assessments reports: a cross-sectional analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn Ireland, similar to other jurisdictions, health technology assessment (HTA) is used to inform the health payer's drug reimbursement decisions. These HTAs are conducted by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE). In 2009, the NCPE introduced the Rapid Review process to identify drugs that do not require further assessment in the form of the previously established full HTA process.
methodsA retrospective analysis of all Rapid Reviews submitted to the NCPE from 2010 to 2019, inclusive, was conducted. Rapid Review recommendation was recorded (i.e. full HTA required or not required). For those submitted from 2012 to 2019, additional data relating to the drug, economic and clinical evidence-related factors were collected. Multivariable logistic regression methods were used to model the relationship between these factors and the likelihood of requiring a full HTA. An exploratory analysis estimated the additional NCPE appraisal time that would have been required to evaluate all drugs, had the Rapid Review process not been established.
resultsOf the 446 Rapid Reviews submitted, approximately half (49.6%) were deemed to require a full HTA. Drugs for cancer indications, drugs designated first-in-class status, and high-cost drugs were positively and significantly associated with the likelihood of requiring a full HTA. No significant association was found for drugs for orphan indications when factors relating to cost and clinical evidence were included in the model. Without the Rapid Review process, an estimated additional 15,631 NCPE appraisal days would have been required to evaluate all drugs submitted over the 10-year period.
conclusionsThis is the first study to use data uniquely available to the NCPE to evaluate factors associated with the requirement for a full HTA following a Rapid Review. The process has reduced the NCPE appraisal time required to evaluate all submissions over the study period. The NCPE's Rapid Review process allows for appropriate resource prioritisation within a national HTA agency.
Indexed as
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.