ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To ensure the long-term sustainability of its Community-Based Health Insurance scheme, the Government of Rwanda is working on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to prioritize its resources for health. The objectives of the study were to rapidly assess (1) the cost-effectiveness and (2) the budget impact of providing PD versus HD for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) in the tertiary care setting in Rwanda. METHODS: A rapid cost-effectiveness analysis for patients with AKI was conducted to support prioritization. An 'adaptive' HTA approach was undertaken by adjusting the international Decision Support Initiative reference case for time and data constraints. Available local and international data were used to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with hemodialysis (HD) in the tertiary hospital setting. RESULTS: The analysis found that HD was slightly more effective and slightly more expensive in the payer perspective for most patients with AKI (aged 15-49). HD appeared to be cost-effective when only comparing these two dialysis strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 378,174 Rwandan francs (RWF) or 367 United States dollars (US$), at a threshold of 0.5 × gross domestic product per capita (RWF 444,074 or US$431). Sensitivity analysis found that reducing the cost of HD kits would make HD even more cost-effective. Uncertainty regarding PD costs remains. Budget impact analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of the biggest cost driver, HD kits, could produce significantly more savings in five years than switching to PD. Thus, price negotiations could significantly improve the efficiency of HD provision. CONCLUSION: Dialysis is costly and covered by insurance in many countries for the financial protection of patients. This analysis enabled policymakers to make evidence-based decisions to improve the efficiency of dialysis provision.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) is an established mechanism for explicit priority setting to support universal health coverage. However, full HTA requires significant time, data, and capacity for each intervention, which limits the number of decisions it can inform. Another approach systematically adapts full HTA methods by leveraging HTA evidence from other settings. We call this "adaptive" HTA (aHTA), although in settings where time is the main constraint, it is also called "rapid HTA." METHODS: The objectives of this scoping review were to identify and map existing aHTA methods, and to assess their triggers, strengths, and weaknesses. This was done by searching HTA agencies' and networks' websites, and the published literature. Findings have been narratively synthesized. RESULTS: This review identified 20 countries and 1 HTA network with aHTA methods in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and South-East Asia. These methods have been characterized into 5 types: rapid reviews, rapid cost-effectiveness analyses, rapid manufacturer submissions, transfers, and de facto HTA. Three characteristics "trigger" the use of aHTA instead of full HTA: urgency, certainty, and low budget impact. Sometimes, an iterative approach to selecting methods guides whether to do aHTA or full HTA. aHTA was found to be faster and more efficient, useful for decision makers, and to reduce duplication. Nevertheless, there is limited standardization, transparency, and measurement of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: aHTA is used in many settings. It has potential to improve the efficiency of any priority-setting system, but needs to be better formalized to improve uptake, particularly for nascent HTA systems.
