The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Single Technology Appraisal Process: Lessons from the First 4 Years

被引:13
作者
Kaltenthaler, Eva [1 ]
Papaioannou, Diana [1 ]
Boland, Angela [2 ]
Dickson, Rumona [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, ScHARR, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, Merseyside, England
关键词
critique; data collection; decision making; health care decision making; United Kingdom; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; NICE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.007
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process in the United Kingdom was established in 2005 in order to provide guidance on new technologies as close to their launch as possible. The NICE recommended time frame for completion of an STA is 34 weeks. The purpose of this study was to map the first 95 STAs to collect information on a range of issues including timelines and appraisal decisions. Methods: A mapping tool was devised to collect information from the NICE Web site. Data were analyzed by calculating frequencies. Simple descriptive statistics were applied where appropriate. Results: Ninety-five STAs were included in the analysis. Almost one-third (30/95) initially identified topics did not go on to be appraised often due to licensing issues. Timelines were measured for 29 completed STAs. Eight (28%) of these were completed by 37 weeks and 20 (69%) by 42 weeks. When STAs with appeals were excluded, 31% (8/26) were completed by 37 weeks and 85% (22/26) by 42 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported by manufacturers were consistently lower than those estimated by the evidence review groups. In all, 76% (38/50) of the completed STAs resulted in an approval. Conclusions: The NICE Web site enabled access to almost all necessary information, although electronic documents were sometimes difficult to locate. One-third of the referred topics were suspended or terminated. The NICE STA process is slower than initially anticipated and this is primarily due to events outside of NICE's direct control.
引用
收藏
页码:1158 / 1165
页数:8
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], GUID METH TECHN APPR
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2009, GUID SINGL TECHN APP
[3]  
[Anonymous], LUNG CANC NONSM CELL
[4]   Who Does the Numbers? The Role of Third-Party Technology Assessment to Inform Health Systems' Decision-Making about the Funding of Health Technologies [J].
Barbieri, Marco ;
Hawkins, Neil ;
Sculpher, Mark .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (02) :193-201
[5]   Single Technology Appraisals by NICE Are They Delivering Faster Guidance to the NHS? [J].
Barham, Leela .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2008, 26 (12) :1037-1043
[6]   Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review [J].
Bell, CM ;
Urbach, DR ;
Ray, JG ;
Bayoumi, A ;
Rosen, AB ;
Greenberg, D ;
Neumann, PJ .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7543) :699-701
[7]  
Buxton MJ, 2006, SCRIP MAG, VXX, P24
[8]   Using Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness to Make Drug Coverage Decisions A Comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada [J].
Clement, Fiona M. ;
Harris, Anthony ;
Li, Jing Jing ;
Yong, Karen ;
Lee, Karen M. ;
Manns, Braden J. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 302 (13) :1437-1443
[9]   Can NICE Be Nicer? In a World of Budget Constraints There Are No Easy Solutions [J].
Drummond, Michael ;
Sorenson, Corinna .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (05) :634-636
[10]   Does 'NICE blight' exist, and if so, why? [J].
Haycox, Alan .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2008, 26 (12) :987-989