Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38261131›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2024

AOTMiT reimbursement recommendations compared to other HTA agencies.

Aneta Mela, Dorota Lis, Elżbieta Rdzanek, Janusz Jaroszyński, Marzena Furtak-Niczyporuk, Bartłomiej Drop, Tomasz Blicharski, Maciej Niewada

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Aneta MelaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Preclinical Research and Technology (CePT), Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha 1B, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. aneta.mela@gmail.com.
Dorota LisHealthQuest Sp z o.o. Sp. K, 01-625, Warsaw, Poland.
Elżbieta RdzanekDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Preclinical Research and Technology (CePT), Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha 1B, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland.
Janusz JaroszyńskiDepartment of Administrative Procedure, Faculty of Law and Administration, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University of Lublin, Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej 5, 20-031, Lublin, Poland.
Marzena Furtak-NiczyporukDepartment of Public Health, Medical University of Lublin, Chodźki 1, 20-093, Lublin, Poland.
Bartłomiej DropDepartment of Information Technology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Lublin, 20-093, Lublin, Poland.
Tomasz BlicharskiDepartment of Orthopeadics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lublin, K. Jaczewskiego 8, 20-090, Lublin, Poland.
Maciej NiewadaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Preclinical Research and Technology (CePT), Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha 1B, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our objective was to compare AOTMiT (Polish: Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji) recommendations to other HTA (Health Technology Assessment) agencies for newly registered drugs and new registration indications issued by the European Medicines Agency between 2014 and 2019. The study aims to assess the consistency and justifications of AOTMiT recommendations compared to that of other HTA agencies in 11 countries. A total of 2496 reimbursement recommendations published by 12 HTA agencies for 464 medicinal products and 525 indications were analyzed. Our analysis confirmed that the Polish AOTMiT agency seems to bear the closest resemblance to the corresponding HTA agencies from Canada (CADTH) and New Zealand (PHARMAC), when it comes to the outcome of HTA recommendations (positive or negative). Poland had a general scheme for justifying recommendations, similar to that of Ireland-four aspects (i.e., clinical efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and impact on the payer's budget) are important for Poland when formulating the final decision. Compared to other countries, Poland shows a noticeably different pattern of justifying reimbursement recommendations, as revealed primarily in terms of budget impact and somewhat less so for cost-effectiveness rationales.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementPolandReimbursement MechanismsAHTAPolAOTMiTHTA agenciesReimbursement recommendations

Identifiers

PMID38261131
PMCPMC11442500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.