In Brazil, inclusion and exclusion of health technologies within the Unified Health System (SUS) is the responsibility of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). A recent Cochrane systematic review demonstrated that intramuscular interferon beta 1a (IFN-β-1a-IM) was inferior to the other beta interferons (IFN-βs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). As a result, CONITEC commissioned an analysis to review possible disinvestment within SUS. The objective of this paper is to describe the disinvestment process for IFN-β-1a-IM in Brazil. The first assessment comprised a literature review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. The outcome of interest was the proportion of relapse-free patients in 2 years. This analysis confirmed the inferiority of IFN-β-1a-IM. Following this, CONITEC recommended disinvestment, with the decision sent for public consultation. More than 3000 contributions were made on CONITEC’s webpage, most of them against the preliminary decision. As a result, CONITEC commissioned a study to assess the effectiveness of IFN-β-1a-IM among Brazilian patients in routine clinical care. The second assessment involved an 11-year follow-up of a non-concurrent cohort of 12,154 MS patients developed by deterministic-probabilistic linkage of SUS administrative databases. The real-world assessment further demonstrated that IFN-β-1a-IM users had a statistically higher risk of treatment failure, defined as treatment switching or relapse treatment or death, with the assessment showing that IFN-β-1a-IM was inferior to the other IFN-βs and to glatiramer acetate in both direct and indirect analysis. In the drug ranking with 40,000 simulations, IFN-β-1a-IM was the worst option, with a success rate of only 152/40,000. Following this, CONITEC decided to exclude the intramuscular presentation of IFN-β from the current MS treatment guidelines, giving patients who are currently on this treatment the option of continuing until treatment failure. In conclusion, we believe this is the first example of this new disinvestment process in action, providing an exemplar for other treatments in Brazil as well as other countries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0579-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
AimsCurrent recommendations regarding the best treatment option for coronary revascularization are usually based on composite outcomes that were not selected or weighed with patients thence they may fail in representing patients’ preferences adequately. This systematic review aimed to appraise existing literature surrounding stated preference (SP) regarding coronary revascularization.Methods and resultsStudies related to SP regarding coronary revascularization were searched on Medline, Embase and Lilacs databases. Two reviewers screened all titles independently, and consensus resolved any disagreements. Of 735 total citations, six studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Notably, the attributes most often cited in these studies coincided with those already used in clinical trials (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and redo revascularization). Half of the studies analyzed the use of composite endpoints and showed the necessity to review this practice since the attributes are weighed differently, and there is a disagreement between patients and physicians. Also, a large variety of methods were used to elicitate and value the attributes such as rating, ranking, standard gamble, willingness to pay, and discrete choice experiments.ConclusionDespite a large number of studies comparing revascularization treatment efficacy, there are just a few focusing on patients’ preferences. The selection of outcomes to be considered in the trade-off between treatment options and how to weigh them properly, taking into consideration patients’ preferences, need to be explored in future trials.
Resumo Fundamento Atualmente o sistema de saúde público brasileiro (SUS) não contempla a angiotomografia de coronárias. Objetivos Ranquear sob a perspectiva do SUS, a custo-efetividade de estratégias diagnósticas combinando teste ergométrico, cintilografia miocárdica, ecocardiograma por estresse e angiotomografia de coronárias para o diagnóstico de doença arterial coronariana em uma coorte hipotética de pacientes com probabilidade pré-teste intermediária. Métodos Análise de custo-efetividade por meio de árvore de decisão. Foram analisados a relação de custo-efetividade incremental e o benefício líquido em saúde das estratégias diagnósticas, com a adoção de múltiplos limiares de disposição a pagar entre 0,05 e 1 PIB per capita por diagnóstico correto. Nos casos de testes sequenciais, um segundo teste confirmatório era realizado quando o primeiro fosse positivo. Resultados Após exclusão das estratégias diagnósticas dominadas ou com dominância estendida, a fronteira de eficiência foi composta por três estratégias: teste ergométrico, teste ergométrico seguido de ecocardiograma de estresse, e ecocardiograma de estresse seguido de angiotomografia de coronárias, sendo esta última a estratégia mais custo-efetiva. Pelo critério do benefício líquido, o ranqueamento das estratégias mais custo-efetivas variou conforme a disposição a pagar. Conclusão Utilizando conceitos atuais de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde, este estudo fornece um ranqueamento para a tomada de decisão sobre qual estratégia diagnóstica utilizar, em uma população com risco pré-teste intermediário para DAC. Com estimativa factível de custos para a ATC, o impacto da inclusão desta ao rol do arsenal diagnóstico representaria uma estratégia custo-efetiva na maioria dos cenários avaliados nas variações de disposição a pagar.
BackgroundPatients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) may face important decisions regarding treatment options, with the “right choice” depending on the relative weights of risks and benefits. Studies performed as discrete choice experiments are used to estimate these weights, and attribute selection is an essential step in the design of these studies. Attributes not included in the design cannot be analyzed. In this study, we aimed to elicit, rank, and rate attributes that may be considered important to patients and physicians who must choose between angioplasty and surgery for coronary revascularization.MethodsThe elicitation process involved performing a systematic review to search for attributes cited in declared preference studies in addition to face-to-face interviews with cardiologists and experts. The interviews were audio-recorded in digital format, and the collected data were transcribed and searched to identify new attributes. The criterion used to finish the data collection process was sampling saturation.ResultsA systematic review resulted in the selection of the following 14 attributes: atrial fibrillation, heart failure, incision scar, length of stay, long-term survival, myocardial infarction, periprocedural death, postoperative infection, postprocedural angina, pseudoaneurysm, renal failure, repeat coronary artery bypass grafting, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, and stroke. The interviews added no new attributes. After rating, we identified significant differences in the values that patients and cardiologists placed on renal insufficiency (p<0.001), periprocedural death (p<0.001), and long-term survival (p<0.001).ConclusionDecisions regarding the best treatment option for patients with CAD should be made based on differences in risk and the patient’s preference regarding the most relevant endpoints. We elicited, ranked, and rated 14 attributes related to CAD treatment options. This list of attributes may help researchers who seek to perform future preference studies of CAD treatment options.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.