Once años de evaluaciones económicas de productos sanitarios en la Red de Agencias de Evaluación. Calidad metodológica e impacto del coste-utilidad / Eleven years of economic evaluations of medical devices by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies. Methodological quality and cost-utility impact

OBJETIVO: Analizar la calidad y el impacto de los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios realizados por la Red de Agencias de Evaluación (RedETS). MÉTODO: Los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios se identificaron buscando entre los informes de evaluación de la base de datos de la web de RedETS (2006-2016). La calidad se evaluó con un listado de verificación de calidad de RedETS, y su impacto, comparando resultados de coste-utilidad y la inclusión en la cartera común de servicios del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Se analizó la inclusión en la cartera común si la ratio de coste-efectividad incremental superaba o no los 25.000 € por año de vida ajustado por calidad. RESULTADOS: Se encontraron 25 análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios (12 de coste-utilidad, 10 de coste-efectividad y 3 de ambos). De ellos, 15 estudios con 19 ratios de coste-utilidad seleccionados cumplían al menos 18 de 25 criterios de verificación. Asimismo, 12 de los 15 estudios cumplían 18 de los 25 criterios. Sobre el impacto, en 6 de los 19 resultados se incluyó el producto en cartera aunque la ratio superó los 25.000 € por año de vida ajustado por calidad. En tres casos se está en proceso de reevaluación; en otro, de replanteamiento una vez realizados los informes de eficacia-seguridad de nuevos dispositivos; y en dos casos se señala en la cartera que debe seguirse un protocolo. CONCLUSIONES: La mayoría de los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios analizados cumplieron casi todos los ítems del listado de verificación y, por tanto, fueron exhaustivos. Estos análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios fueron coherentes con el marco de toma de decisiones para manejar eficientemente la cartera del Sistema Nacional de Salud

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality and impact of cost-utility evaluations of medical devices carried out by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies (RedETS). METHOD: The cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were identified by searching the evaluation reports of the RedETS website database (2006-2016). Quality and its impact were evaluated with a RedETS quality checklist, comparing cost-utility results and inclusion in the portfolio of common services of the National Health System. The portfolio inclusion status was analysed considering whether the cost-effectiveness incremental ratio was or was not less than €25,000/quality adjusted life years. RESULTS: 25 cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were found (12 cost-utility, 10 cost-effectiveness and 3 both). Fifteen selected cost-utility studies with 19 cost-utility ratios met at least 18 of 25 verification criteria. Also, 12 of the 15 studies met 19 of the 25 criteria. On the impact, in 6 out of the 19 results, the product was included in the portfolio even though the ratio exceeded €25,000/quality adjusted life years. There are three cases undergoing a re-evaluation process, another case being reconsidered once the efficacy-safety of new devices has been reported and in two cases the portfolio states that protocols are required. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cost-utility evaluations of medical devices published by RedETS fulfil most of the items on the checklist and, therefore, were thorough. These cost-utility evaluations of medical devices are consistent with the decision-making framework to efficiently manage the National Health System portfolio

[Eleven years of economic evaluations of medical devices by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies. Methodological quality and cost-utility impact]. / Once años de evaluaciones económicas de productos sanitarios en la Red de Agencias de Evaluación. Calidad metodológica e impacto del coste-utilidad.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality and impact of cost-utility evaluations of medical devices carried out by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies (RedETS). METHOD: The cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were identified by searching the evaluation reports of the RedETS website database (2006-2016). Quality and its impact were evaluated with a RedETS quality checklist, comparing cost-utility results and inclusion in the portfolio of common services of the National Health System. The portfolio inclusion status was analysed considering whether the cost-effectiveness incremental ratio was or was not less than €25,000/quality adjusted life years. RESULTS: 25 cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were found (12 cost-utility, 10 cost-effectiveness and 3 both). Fifteen selected cost-utility studies with 19 cost-utility ratios met at least 18 of 25 verification criteria. Also, 12 of the 15 studies met 19 of the 25 criteria. On the impact, in 6 out of the 19 results, the product was included in the portfolio even though the ratio exceeded €25,000/quality adjusted life years. There are three cases undergoing a re-evaluation process, another case being reconsidered once the efficacy-safety of new devices has been reported and in two cases the portfolio states that protocols are required. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cost-utility evaluations of medical devices published by RedETS fulfil most of the items on the checklist and, therefore, were thorough. These cost-utility evaluations of medical devices are consistent with the decision-making framework to efficiently manage the National Health System portfolio.