RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To map the available methodological guidelines and documents for conducting and reporting benefit-risk assessment (BRA) during health technologies' life cycle; and to identify methodological guidelines for BRA that could serve as the basis for the development of a BRA guideline for the context of health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Searches were conducted in three main sources up to March 2023: (1) electronic databases; (2) grey literature (48 HTA and regulatory organisations) and (3) manual search and contacting experts. We included methodological guidelines or publications presenting methods for conducting or reporting BRA of any type of health technologies in any context of the technology's life cycle. Selection process and data charting were conducted by independent reviewers. We provided a structured narrative synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: From the 83 eligible documents, six were produced in the HTA context, 30 in the regulatory and 35 involved guidance for BRA throughout the technology's life cycle. We identified 129 methodological approaches for BRA in the documents. The most commonly referred to descriptive frameworks were the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk and Linked decisions and the Benefit-Risk Action Team. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most commonly cited quantitative framework. We also identified the most cited metric indices, estimation and utility survey techniques that could be used for BRA. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for BRA in HTA are less established. The findings of this review, however, will support and inform the elaboration of the Brazilian methodological guideline on BRA for HTA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Purpose: The proposed scoping review aims to explore and map wheelchair outcome measurement instruments for children in the literature.Method: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The review question and eligibility criteria were developed using the PCC (population, concept, context) mnemonic as follows: (P) children manual or motorised wheelchair users (aged ≤ 18 years), (C) wheelchair outcome measurement instruments, (C) primary sources of literature. The search will be conducted in nine relevant electronic databases. including grey literature from Academic Google. Study screening, selection, and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. A third reviewer will resolve discrepancies between the authors. General characteristics, population, feasibility, interpretability data will be extracted in accordance with the COSMIN methodology (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments). This will encompass data pertaining to the measurement properties of the domains of reliability, validity and responsiveness. A descriptive analysis will be carried out, and the results will be classified into categories and presented in tables accompanied by a descriptive summary.Results: The results can inform future research directions, clinical practice and the development of wheelchair outcome measurement instruments. Furthermore, it will help professionals in rehabilitation and wheelchair services to find the wheelchair outcome measurement instruments according to the target population and cultural context.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThis review has the potential to enhance understanding of wheelchair outcome measurement instruments, thereby enabling rehabilitation professionals to assess the impact and progress of wheelchair use within the target population.The findings related to measurement properties may guide future research in the field of wheelchair outcome measurement instruments.Additionally it will assist clinical professionals in identifying appropriate wheelchair outcome measurement instruments based on the target population and cultural context.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Benefit-risk assessment (BRA) is used in multiple phases along the health technology's life-cycle to evaluate the balance between the benefits and risks, as it is fundamental to all stakeholders. BRA and its methodological approaches have been applied primarily in the context of regulatory agencies. However, BRA's application and extent in the context of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies remain less clear. Our goal is to perform a scoping review to identify and map methodological guidelines and publications on methods of BRA. This will be done considering the different phases of the life-cycle of health technologies to underline both the depth and extent of research concerning BRA, especially in the context of HTA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol was developed following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the updated guidelines by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will include methodological publications that provide recommendations or guidelines on methods for BRA. We will conduct electronic searches on Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) databases; manual searches on the main websites of HTA bodies and drug regulatory organisations; and contact experts in the field. Systematic extraction forms will be used to screen and assess the identified publications by independent assessors. We will provide a qualitative synthesis using descriptive statistics and visual tools. Results will be summarised in systematic evidence tables and comparative evidence scoping charts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will use data publicly available and does not require ethics approval. The results of this scoping review will contribute to scientific knowledge and act as a basis for methodologists, guideline developers and researchers for the development of BRA to inform regulatory decisions, reimbursement and coverage decision making. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conferences, policy briefs and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V).

Assuntos

RESUMO

What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND:  The aim of this work is to characterize the processes associated with patient and public involvement (PPI) in the form of public consultations (PC) during the first 10 years of operation of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the Unified Health System (Conitec) of Brazil, and to identify factors associated with changes in Conitec's recommendations following these PC. METHODS:  This cross-sectional study analysed all processes related to the adoption of technologies that took place in Brazil between 2012 and 2021 based on technical reports and self-reported information collected from PC participants. A multiple logistic regression model identified factors associated with changes in Conitec's recommendations following PC. RESULTS:  A total of 479 technical reports were published, of which 83% (n = 400) were submitted to PC. Demands were made mainly by applicants from the government (n = 262; 55%), regarding the adoption of medicines (n = 366; 76%), in which context neoplasms and infectious diseases were the most frequent indications (n = 66; 14% for each). A total of 264 (55%) processes resulted in a final recommendation in favour of introducing the technology. Over the period of 10 years, 196 483 contributions were received in response to PC. The largest volume of contributions was made by patients and their families or representatives (n = 99 082; 50%), females (122 895; 67%), white individuals (129 165; 71%) and individuals between the ages of 25 and 59 years (145 364; 80%). Alteration of the preliminary recommendation occurred in 13% (n = 53) of the PC, with a higher proportion of recommendations being altered from 2017 onwards. Increased participation by patients had a significant impact on the alteration of the preliminary recommendation (odds ratio 3.87, 95% CI 1.33-13.35, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Increased engagement of patients and their families and caregivers in PC was associated with changing the preliminary recommendation of Conitec about the adoption of technologies into the public health system in Brazil.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Importance: Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objectives: To assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA. Data Sources: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Study Selection: Head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab and their biologic reference drugs for RA were assessed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently abstracted all data. Meta-analysis was conducted with bayesian random effects using relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and trial sequential analysis. Specific domains were assessed for the risk of bias in equivalence and noninferiority trials. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Equivalence was tested using prespecified margins for the American College of Rheumatology criteria, with at least 20% improvement in the core set measures (ACR20) (ie, RR, 0.94 to 1.06), and for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (ie, SMD, -0.22 to 0.22). Secondary outcomes included 14 items measuring safety and immunogenicity. Results: A total of 25 head-to-head trials provided data on 10 642 randomized patients with moderate to severe RA. Biosimilars met equivalence with reference biologics in terms of ACR20 response (24 RCTs with 10 259 patients; RR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 1.04; τ2 = 0.000) and change of HAQ-DI scores (14 RCTs with 5579 patients; SMD, -0.04; 95% CrI, -0.11 to 0.02; τ2 = 0.002) considering prespecified margins of equivalence. Trial sequential analysis found evidence for equivalence for ACR20 since 2017 and HAQ-DI since 2016. Overall, biosimilars were associated with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles compared with reference biologics. Conclusion and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were associated with clinically equivalent treatment effects compared with their reference biologics for the treatment of RA.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and ranks second in mortality. Screening programs for early detection and treatment have been implemented in several countries. Economic evaluations are an important tool to support decision-making about reimbursement and coverage decisions in health systems and, therefore, to support efficient resource allocation. The article aims to review the up-to-date evidence on economic evaluations of CRC screening strategies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, SciELO, Lilacs, CRD databases, and lists of references were reviewed to identify relevant literature regarding full economic evaluations of CRC screening in asymptomatic average-risk individuals over 40 years old. Searches were conducted with no restriction to language, setting, or date. Qualitative syntheses described CRC screening strategies and comparators (baseline context), study designs, key parameter inputs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Seventy-nine articles were included. Most of the studies were from high-income countries and a third-party payer perspective. Markov models were predominantly used, although microsimulation has been increasingly adopted in the last 15 years. The authors found 88 different screening strategies for CRC, which differed in the type of technique, the interval of screening, and the strategy, i.e., isolated or combined. The annual fecal immunochemical test was the most predominant screening strategy. All studies reported cost-effective results in their scenarios compared to no screening scenarios. One-quarter of the publications reported cost-saving results. It is still necessary to develop future economic evaluations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), which account for the high burden of disease.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is recommended as first-choice treatment to inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is not widely adopted in developing countries, and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. We aimed to perform a systematic review of full economic evaluations (EE) that compared SABR with other radiotherapy or surgical procedures to assess the results and methodological approach. METHODS: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241640). We included full EE studies with early-stage NSCLC in which one group was submitted to SABR. Studies that were partial EE, included advanced NSCLC or other neoplasm were excluded. We performed the last search on June 2021 in Medline, EMBASE and other databases. The reporting quality were assessed by CHEERS checklist. The main characteristics of each study were tabulated, and the results were presented by a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We included nine studies. Three compared radiotherapy techniques, in which SABR was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Six compared SABR with surgery, and in this group, there was not a unanimous decision. All included only direct healthcare costs but varied about categories included. The parameters used in the model-based studies were highly heterogeneous using mixed data from various sources. The items properly reported varied from 29 to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: The studies were all from developed countries and lacked in reporting quality. We recommend that developing countries produce their own studies. More strict alignment to reporting guidelines and use of robust evidence as model parameters are also advised.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives. OBJECTIVE: To illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments. METHODS: An MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework. RESULTS: On consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria "overall survival" (mean 0.22), "burden of disease" (mean 0.21) and "adverse events" (mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to "progression-free survival" and "cost of treatment" (mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study. CONCLUSION: The Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital-based HTA of cancer treatments.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Palliative care (PC) improves the quality of life of patients with diseases such as cancer, and several studies have shown a reduction in costs among patients who use PC services when compared with those receiving standard oncological treatments. Most studies on PC costs are carried out in high-income countries. There is a lack of these types of studies in middle-income and low-income countries and of better evidence about this intervention. OBJECTIVE: To describe resource utilisation and costs among patients with cancer in a Brazilian quaternary hospital by cancer localisation and per month of treatment before death. METHODS: This study is a description of retrospective costs to estimate the costs of formal healthcare sector associated with PCs, from the perspective of a public quaternary cancer hospital. Unit costs were estimated using microcosting and macrocosting approaches. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years old who died from 2010 to 2013 and who had at least two visits in PC and/or made use of hospice care. RESULTS: Among the 2985 patients included in the study, the average cost per patient was US$12 335, ranging from US$8269 for patients with pancreatic cancer to US$19 395 for patients with brain cancer. The main costing item was hospital admission (47.6% of the total cost), followed by hospice care (29.5%) and medical and other supplies (11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The study clarified the direct medical costs and the profile and use of resources of patients with cancer who need PC, and can help in the planning and allocation of resources in cancer care.

Assuntos