Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Free access
Research Article
22 June 2016

Adoption of trastuzumab for breast cancer in four emerging countries in the use of health technology assessment: a case study

Authors: Eva Martín-Ruiz, Jaime Espín Balbino [email protected], Alexandre Lemgruber, Araceli Caro-Martínez, Fernanda Lessa, Antonio Olry-de-Labry-Lima, Roman Pérez-Velasco, and Leticia García-MochónAuthor Info & Affiliations
Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.
Volume 5, Number 4
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0025
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To describe processes for the adoption of trastuzumab in four countries in the use of health technology assessment (HTA): Poland, Albania, Brazil and Colombia. Materials & methods: Mixed methods were used for collection and triangulation of data. Data were examined following a conceptual framework connecting HTA process steps and key principles. Results: Trastuzumab was generally assessed following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, areas of improvement were detected in terms of transparency and inclusiveness, as well as in methods used. The extent to which different criteria influenced decisions was unclear. Conclusion: This study covers an area in which information may not always be available, and sets the example for emerging countries interested in HTA. Further studies to gain a better understanding on decision-making across settings are warranted.

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_table.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
World Cancer Report 2014. Steward B, Wild CP (Eds). International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Health Organization, Geneva, CH (2014). www.iarc.fr/en/publications/books/wcr/wcr-order.php.
Google Scholar
2.
World Health Organization. Cancer. Fact sheet nº 297. February 2015. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/.
Google Scholar
3.
Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int. J. Cancer 127(12), 2893–2917 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Carter P, Presta L, Gorman CM et al. Humanization of an anti-p185HER2 antibody for human cancer therapy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89(10), 4285–4289 (1992).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Gschwind A, Fischer OM, Ullrich A. The discovery of receptor tyrosine kinases: targets for cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 361–370 (2004).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Trastuzumab for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Technology appraisal guidance [TA107] (2006). www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta107.
Google Scholar
7.
Moja L, Tagliabue L, Balduzzi S et al. Trastuzumab containing regimens for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4, CD006243 (2012).
Google Scholar
8.
World Health Organization. The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines. Report of the WHO Expert Committee. Technical Report Series 994. www.apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/189763/1/9789241209946_eng.pdf.
Google Scholar
9.
Chalkidou K, Marquez P, Dhillon PK et al. Evidence-informed frameworks for cost-effective cancer care and prevention in low, middle, and high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 15(3), e119–e131 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• An overview of how a selection of health technology assessment (HTA) systems in selected countries at every economic level deals with cancer technologies.
10.
Drummond MF, Mason AR. European perspectives on the cost and cost–effectiveness of cancer therapies. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 191–195 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Pichón-Riviere A, Garay OU, Augustovski F et al. Implications of global pricing policies on access to innovative drugs: the case of trastuzumab in seven Latin American Countries. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 31(1–2), 2–11 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• An exploration of the cost–effectiveness of trastuzumab in Latin American countries, demonstrating the usefulness of economic evaluation for the price negotiation of high-cost drugs.
12.
Velasco-Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Busse R. Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe: Current Status, Challenges and Potential. Observatory Studies Series No 14. WHO, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Copenhagen, Denmark (2008).
Google Scholar
13.
Neuman PJ. Lessons for health technology assessment: it is not only about the evidence. Value Health 12(2), S45–S48 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Yin RK. Case Study Research, Design and Method. Sage Publications, London, UK (2009).
Google Scholar
15.
Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 27(11), 100 (2011).
Google Scholar
16.
Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(3), 244–258 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Goodman C. Toward international good practices in health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28, 169–170 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Nicod E, Kanavos P. Value Assessments for Orphan Drugs: Mixed Methods to Systematically Compare HTA Decision-Making Processes in Four Countries. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK (2014).
Google Scholar
19.
Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System (AOTMiT). Recommendations and Statements (Polish) (2015). www.aotm.gov.pl/www/index.php?id=12.
Google Scholar
20.
Tirana University Hospital Centre Nene Tereza (QSUT) (Albanian). www.qsut.gov.al.
Google Scholar
21.
Institute for Health Technology Assessment (IETS). Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Early Detection, Integrated Treatment, Follow-up and Rehabilitation of Breast Cancer (Spanish) (2013). www.iets.org.co/reportes-iets/Paginas/Mama.aspx.
Google Scholar
22.
National Committee for Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). Search for Assessed Technologies: Trastuzumab (Portuguese) (2012). www.conitec.gov.br/index.php/tecnologias-em-avaliacao-conitec?filter-search=trastuzumab&btnconitec=&filter_order=&filter_order_Dir=&limitstart=&task=.
Google Scholar
23.
Andalusian School of Public Health (EASP). Strengthening and Implementing HTA in Emerging Settings: Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. A Mapping Exercise Based on Literature Review and Surveys. EASP/Pan American Health Organization, Granada, Spain (2015).
Google Scholar
24.
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 21(1), 89–95 (2005).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Compares the different definitions of HTA across countries.
25.
Stephens JM, Hanke B, Doshi JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comp. Eff. Res. (Auckl.) 2, 29–44 (2012).
Google Scholar
•• A survey of how a selection of HTA agencies across the world meet the key principles for good HTA practice.
26.
Kolasa K, Schubert S, Manca A, Hermanowski T. A review of health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations for drug therapies issued between 2007 and 2009 and their impact on policymaking processes in Poland. Health Policy 102, 145–151 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms (2007). https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/.
Google Scholar
28.
Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assesments. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18, 361–422 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model® Version 2.1 (2015). www.corehta.info/BrowseModel.aspx.
Google Scholar
30.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal (Reference PMG9). NICE, London, UK (2013).
Google Scholar
31.
Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). Draft Guidelines for Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Health Technologies in Ireland. HIQA, Dublin, Ireland (2011).
Google Scholar
32.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds). The Cochrane Collaboration, Chichester, UK (2011).
Google Scholar
33.
Huber B, Doyle J. Oncology Drug Development and Value-based Medicine. White Paper. Quintiles, Durham, USA (2015).
Google Scholar
• Discusses what outcomes are most meaningful for the HTA of cancer drugs, among other issues for market access in the oncology field.
34.
Ciani O, Jommi C. The role of health technology assessment bodies in shaping drug development. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 8, 2273–2281 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br. Med. Bull. 96, 5–21 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Jönsson B. Technology assessment for new oncology drugs. Clin. Cancer Res. 19(1), 6–11 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Discusses how the HTA on cancer drugs differs from that of other technologies.
37.
Niezen MGH, de Bont A, Busschbach JJV, Cohen JP, Stolk EA. Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(1), 49–55 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Wilsdom T, Fiz E, Haderi A. A Comparative Analysis of the Role and Impact of Health Technology Assessment: 2013. Final Report. Project No. D19197-00. Charles River Associates, London, UK (2013).
Google Scholar
39.
Sobrido-Prieto M, González-Guitián C, Cerdá-Mota T et al. Strategies for the Diffusion and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Products (Spanish). Ministry of Science & Innovation, Madrid, Spain (2010).
Google Scholar
40.
Booth CM, Dranitsaris G, Gainford MC et al. External influences and priority-setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer. BMC Cancer 7, 110 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.
Mackenzie R, Chapman S, Salkeld G, Holding S. Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue? J. R Soc. Med. 101(6), 305–312 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
42.
Gabe J, Chamberlain K, Norris P, Dew K, Madden H, Hodgetts D. The debate about the funding of Herceptin: a case study of ‘countervailing powers’. Soc. Sci. Med. 75(12), 2353–2361 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|