Challenges and perspectives of the Health Technology evaluation agencies in Peru.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35434/rcmhnaaa.2023.162.1704Keywords:
Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Biomedical Technology, Health Evaluation, PeruAbstract
Health Technologies (HT) are important to make appropriate decisions in the field of health. The need to standardize TS evaluations is highlighted, since there are currently differences in the methods and recommendations used. In addition, the lack of trained human resources to carry out these evaluations is mentioned, as well as the long times they can take. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize the technologies to be evaluated to maximize available resources.
In Latin America, the health technology prioritization process presents various barriers, such as the lack of an explicit and formal prioritization process in most countries. These barriers include fragmentation of health services, disagreement among stakeholders, and fear of reduced discretion in decision-making. Despite these difficulties, prioritization processes have been developed based on different methodological frameworks, which must be transparent, systematic, efficient, explicit and consensual. Therefore, it is necessary to have reference frameworks to evaluate the impact of these technologies on healthcare.
The importance of declaring conflicts of interest in the evaluation of health technologies and how industry influence can affect the evaluation process is highlighted. Furthermore, the need to standardize evaluation methodologies and instruments is highlighted to improve the quality and comparability of STDs.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Lessa F, Caccavo F, Curtis S, Ouimet-Rathé S, Lemgruber A. Strengthening and implementing health technology assessment and the decision-making process in the Region of the Americas. Rev Panam Salud Pública [Internet]. 2017 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];1-10. Disponible en: http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/34574
Wang T, Lipska I, McAuslane N, Liberti L, Hövels A, Leufkens H. Benchmarking health technology assessment agencies-methodological challenges and recommendations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 8 de septiembre de 2020;1-17.
Zentner A, Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. GMS Health Technol Assess. 15 de noviembre de 2005;1:Doc09.
Rand LZ, Kesselheim AS. An International Review of Health Technology Assessment Approaches to Prescription Drugs and Their Ethical Principles. J Law Med Ethics J Am Soc Law Med Ethics. septiembre de 2020;48(3):583-94.
Nicod E. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ HEPAC Health Econ Prev Care. julio de 2017;18(6):715-30.
Aprueban el Documento Técnico: Manual de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias - Versión Corta-RESOLUCION MINISTERIAL-No 112-2022/MINSA [Internet]. [citado 27 de enero de 2023]. Disponible en: http://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/aprueban-el-documento-tecnico-manual-de-evaluacion-de-tecno-resolucion-ministerial-no-112-2022minsa-2042958-3/
Schnell-Inderst P, Mayer J, Lauterberg J, Hunger T, Arvandi M, Conrads-Frank A, et al. Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects. Z Evidenz Fortbild Qual Im Gesundheitswesen. 2015;109(4-5):309-18.
Oortwijn W, Determann D, Schiffers K, Tan SS, van der Tuin J. Towards Integrated Health Technology Assessment for Improving Decision Making in Selected Countries. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. septiembre de 2017;20(8):1121-30.
Fernandez-Navarro M, Gonzales-Saldaña J, Araujo-Castillo RV. La importancia de la estandarización de la evaluación metodológica en las evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias. Rev Cuerpo Méd Hosp Nac Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo. 2022;15(Supl. 1).
Vreman RA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Hövels AM, Leufkens HGM, Goettsch WG. Differences in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations Among European Jurisdictions: The Role of Practice Variations. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. enero de 2020;23(1):10-6.
Benoit C, Gorry P. health technology assessment: the scientific career of a policy concept. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. ed de 2017;33(1):128-34.
Suharlim C, Kumar R, Salim J, Mehra M, Gilmartin C, Caruso AA, et al. Exploring facilitators and barriers to introducing health technology assessment: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. ed de 2022;38(1):e5.
Lee HY, Nguyen TTT, Park S, Hoang VM, Kim WH. Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 22 de agosto de 2021;18(16):8846.
Allen M, Brar SS, Farrell L. Medical education needs to teach health technology assessment. Med Teach. 1 de enero de 2010;32(1):62-4.
Mueller D, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Chiumente M, Oortwijn W. Toward a common understanding of competencies for health technology assessment: enhancing educational and training programs around the globe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. ed de 2021;37(1):e29.
Manterola C, Otzen T, Castro M, Grande L, Manterola C, Otzen T, et al. Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (ETESA) una Visión Global del Concepto y de sus Alcances. Int J Morphol. septiembre de 2018;36(3):1134-42.
European Commission. Impact assessment: Strengthening of the EU cooperation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) [Internet]. 2018. Disponible en: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technology_assessment/ docs/2018_ia_final_en.pdf
Lessa F, Ferraz MB. Health technology assessment: the process in Brazil. Rev Panam Salud Pública [Internet]. 23 de marzo de 2017 [citado 2 de febrero de 2023];41:e25. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6660842/
Pichon-Riviere A, Augustovski F, García Martí S, Alcaraz A, Alfie V, Sampietro-Colom L. Identification and selection of health technologies for assessment by agencies in support of reimbursement decisions in Latin America. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16 de agosto de 2021;37(1):e80.
Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. julio de 2008;24(3):244-58.
Keech J, Beca J, Eisen A, Kennedy E, Kim J, Kouroukis CT, et al. Impact of a Novel Prioritization Framework on Clinician-Led Oncology Drug Submissions. Curr Oncol. abril de 2019;26(2):155-61.
Poblete-Vargas S, Castillo-Laborde C. [Priority setting for the health technology assessment]. Rev Med Chil. enero de 2014;142 Suppl 1:S22-26.
Kosherbayeva L, Hailey D, Kurakbaev K, Tabarov A, Kumar A, Gutzskaya G, et al. A process of prioritizing topics for Health Techonology Assessment in Kazakhstan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. ed de 2016;32(3):147-51.
Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. julio de 2007;23(3):310-5.
Simpson S ((Editor)), EuroScan International Network (EuroScan). A toolkit for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies [Internet]. Vol. 2. Birmingham, UK: EuroScan International Network; 2014 [citado 1 de septiembre de 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.euroscan.org/methods/methods-toolkit/
Frutos Pérez-Surio A, Gimeno-Gracia M, Alcácera López MaA, Sagredo Samanes MaA, Pardo Jario Ma del P, Salvador Gómez Ma del T. Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework. J Pharm Policy Pract. 21 de agosto de 2019;12(1):21.
Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. julio de 2010;26(3):341-7.
Dodgson J, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips L. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual [Internet]. London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History; 2009 [citado 21 de septiembre de 2022]. Disponible en: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ehlwpaper/12761.htm
Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Approaches: A paper produced by the Priority Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. ed de 1997;13(2):144-85.
Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 4 de mayo de 2006;332(7549):1089-92.
Plüddemann A, Heneghan C, Thompson M, Roberts N, Summerton N, Linden-Phillips L, et al. Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 5 de mayo de 2010;10(1):109.
Drummond M, McGuire A. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford University Press; 2001. 298 p.
Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ HEPAC Health Econ Prev Care. enero de 2018;19(1):123-52.
HAS. Haute Autorité de Santé. [citado 5 de octubre de 2022]. Choices in Methods for Economic Evaluation. Disponible en: https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/r_1499251/en/choices-in-methods-for-economic-evaluation
Pichon-Riviere A, Soto NC, Augustovski FA, García Martí S, Sampietro-Colom L. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias para la toma de decisiones en Latinoamérica: principios de buenas prácticas. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 19 de febrero de 2018;41:e138.
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 1 de mayo de 2016;34(5):435-46.
Devlin NJ, Lorgelly PK. QALYs as a measure of value in cancer. J Cancer Policy. 1 de marzo de 2017;11:19-25.
Rijkom JEFZ van, Leufkens HGM, Busschbach JJV, Broekmans AW, Rutten FFH. Differences in Attitudes, Knowledge and Use of Economic Evaluations in Decision-Making in The Netherlands. PharmacoEconomics. 1 de agosto de 2000;18(2):149-60.
Raiffa H. Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley; 1968. (Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty).
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework. Soc Sci Med 1982. septiembre de 2017;188:137-56.
Angelis A, Linch M, Montibeller G, Molina-Lopez T, Zawada A, Orzel K, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework. Soc Sci Med 1982. febrero de 2020;246:112595.
Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, Tyne C, Blayney DW, Blum D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 10 de agosto de 2015;33(23):2563-77.
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Critique of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Assessment Framework for Cancer Treatments: Putting Methodologic Robustness First. J Clin Oncol. 20 de agosto de 2016;34(24):2935-6.
Pichon-Riviere A, Garcia-Marti S, Oortwijn W, Augustovski F, Sampietro-Colom L. Definiendo el valor de las tecnologías sanitarias en Latino-América: desarrollo de marcos de valor para informar la priorización de recursos sanitarios. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. ed de 2019;35(1):69-74.
Baltussen R, Jansen MPM, Bijlmakers L, Grutters J, Kluytmans A, Reuzel RP, et al. Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. febrero de 2017;20(2):256-60.
PAHO. Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization. 2013 [citado 27 de diciembre de 2022]. Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (ETS). Disponible en: https://www3.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9229:2013-tecnologias-sanitarias&Itemid=41687&lang=es#gsc.tab=0
Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(1):89-95.
Vis C, Bührmann L, Riper H, Ossebaard HC. Health technology assessment frameworks for eHealth: A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. junio de 2020;36(3):204-16.
Banta D, Jonsson E. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. julio de 2009;25 Suppl 1:1-6.
Bashshur R, Shannon G, Sapci H. Telemedicine evaluation. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. junio de 2005;11(3):296-316.
NICE. Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies | Guidance | National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [Internet]. [citado 28 de diciembre de 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7
Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E20.
Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Detmer D, Kahan JP, et al. What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field. J Med Internet Res. 31 de marzo de 2005;7(1):e9.
Ahern DK, Kreslake JM, Phalen JM. What is eHealth (6): perspectives on the evolution of eHealth research. J Med Internet Res. 31 de marzo de 2006;8(1):e4.
Casper GR, Kenron DA. A framework for technology assessment: approaches for the selection of a home technology device. Clin Nurse Spec CNS. 2005;19(4):170-4.
DeChant HK, Tohme WG, Mun SK, Hayes WS, Schulman KA. Health systems evaluation of telemedicine: a staged approach. Telemed J Off J Am Telemed Assoc. 1996;2(4):303-12.
Currie WL. TEMPEST: An integrative model for health technology assessment. Health Policy Technol. 1 de marzo de 2012;1(1):35-49.
Hebert M. Telehealth success: evaluation framework development. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 2):1145-9.
Giansanti D, Morelli S, Macellari V. Telemedicine technology assessment part I: setup and validation of a quality control system. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. abril de 2007;13(2):118-29.
Giansanti D, Morelli S, Macellari V. Telemedicine technology assessment part II: tools for a quality control system. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. abril de 2007;13(2):130-40.
Khoja S, Durrani H, Scott RE, Sajwani A, Piryani U. Conceptual framework for development of comprehensive e-health evaluation tool. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. enero de 2013;19(1):48-53.
Alfonzo A, Huerta MK, Wong S, Passariello G, Díaz M, La Cruz A, et al. Design of a methodology for assessing an electrocardiographic telemonitoring system. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Int Conf. 2007;2007:3729-32.
Grustam AS, Vrijhoef HJM, Koymans R, Hukal P, Severens JL. Assessment of a Business-to-Consumer (B2C) model for Telemonitoring patients with Chronic Heart Failure (CHF). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 11 de octubre de 2017;17(1):145.
Curioso WH, Galán-Rodas E. El rol de la telesalud en la lucha contra el COVID-19 y la evolución del marco normativo peruano. Acta Médica Peru. julio de 2020;37(3):366-75.
Pichon-Riviere A, Augustovski F, García Martí S, Alfie V, Sampietro-Colom L. The link between health technology assessment and decision making for the allocation of health resources in Latin America. Int J Technol Assess Health Care [Internet]. abril de 2020 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];36(2):173-8. Disponible en: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462320000033/type/journal_article
Care AGD of H and A. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care; 2020 [citado 27 de enero de 2023]. Health technology assessment committees – conflicts of interest process guide. Disponible en: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/health-technology-assessment-committees-conflicts-of-interest-process-guide?language=en
Clavert P, Migaud H. Why and how to declare conflicts of interest. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res [Internet]. diciembre de 2021 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];107(8):103103. Disponible en: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877056821003534
Trayer J, Rowbotham NJ, Boyle RJ, Smyth AR. Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim? Breathe [Internet]. junio de 2022 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];18(2):220010. Disponible en: http://breathe.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/20734735.0010-2022
Chimonas S, Mamoor M, Zimbalist SA, Barrow B, Bach PB, Korenstein D. Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review. BMJ [Internet]. 3 de noviembre de 2021 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];e066576. Disponible en: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj-2021-066576
Marcus HJ, Payne CJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Marcus AP, Yang GZ, Darzi A, et al. Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study. BMJ [Internet]. 20 de mayo de 2016 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];i2587. Disponible en: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.i2587
Wallach JD, Ross JS, Naci H. The US Food and Drug Administration’s expedited approval programs: Evidentiary standards, regulatory trade-offs, and potential improvements. Clin Trials [Internet]. junio de 2018 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];15(3):219-29. Disponible en: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1740774518770648
Technology (U.S.) NIC on HSR& HC. HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment [Internet]. U.S. National Library of Medicine; [citado 27 de enero de 2023]. Disponible en: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10103.html
2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities [Internet]. [citado 27 de enero de 2023]. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241509749
Pichon-Riviere A, Soto NC, Augustovski FA, García Martí S, Sampietro-Colom L. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias para la toma de decisiones en Latinoamérica: principios de buenas prácticas. Rev Panam Salud Pública [Internet]. 7 de noviembre de 2017 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];41:1. Disponible en: http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/34364
Euskadi.eus - Eusko Jaurlaritzaren informazioa, tramiteak eta zerbitzuak [Internet]. [citado 24 de septiembre de 2023]. Disponible en: https://www.euskadi.eus/hasiera/
Añel Rodríguez RM. La participación del paciente en su seguridad: propuesta metodológica para promover la agencia del paciente. El caso de la OSI Barrualde-Galdakao. 29 de septiembre de 2018 [citado 24 de septiembre de 2023]; Disponible en: http://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/28969
Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, Pennacchini M, de Paula IC. Health technology assessment (HTA): ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. noviembre de 2009;12(4):453-7.
Alcaraz A, Pichon-Riviere A, García-Martí S, Alfie V, Augustovski F, Castro H. Deliberative processes in decision making informed by health technology assessment in Latin America. Int J Technol Assess Health Care [Internet]. 2022 [citado 27 de enero de 2023];38(1):e86. Disponible en: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462322003294/type/journal_article
Conforman la Red Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (RENETSA) y aprueban otras disposiciones-resolución ministerial-N° 190-2020-MINSA [Internet]. [citado 27 de enero de 2023]. Disponible en: http://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/conforman-la-red-nacional-de-evaluacion-de-tecnologias-sanit-resolucion-ministerial-n-190-2020-minsa-1865494-3/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Cristian Díaz-Vélez, Ricardo Peña Sánchez, Edén Galán-Rodas, Moisés Apolaya Segura, Percy Herrera-Añazco, Fiorella Molinelli Aristondo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
