Table 4 Results of biosimilar HTA report charting
From: Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
HTA classification criteria | Full HTA (n = 2) | Mini-HTA (n = 4) | Rapid review (n = 64) |
|---|---|---|---|
Criterium 1 – Description of the characteristics and current use of the technology | |||
1. Yes, very detailed | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 31 (48.4%) |
2. Yes, but not detailed | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 33 (51.6%) |
Criterium 2 – Evaluation of safety and effectiveness issues | |||
1. Assessment of efficacy/effectiveness and safety | 2 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 53 (82.8%) |
3. Assessment of safety only | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (6.2%) |
4. Assessment of efficacy/effectiveness and safety but evidence was not found | 0 (00.0%) | 0 (00.0%) | 7 (11.0%) |
Criterium 3 – Did they conduct an economic analysis? | |||
1. Yes, a cost-minimisation analysis | 2 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (7.8%) |
6. No, they did not | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 59 (92.2%) |
Criterium 4 – Provision of information on costs/financial impact | |||
1. They provided information on costs and a BIA | 1 (50.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 24 (37.5%) |
2. They provided information on costs but they did not provide a BIA | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (9.4%) |
3. Neither they provided information on costs nor a BIA | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 34 (53.1%) |
Criterium 5 – Discussion of organisational considerations | |||
1. Yes | 2 (100.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 18 (28.1%) |
2. No | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 46 (71.9%) |
Criterium 6 – Conducted a comprehensive systematic literature review or a systematic review of high-level evidence | |||
1. Yes, a systematic review of high-level evidence was conducted | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (00.0%) |
2. Yes, a comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted | 1 (50.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 2 (3.1%) |
3. No, there is no information regarding any method of the evidence synthesis | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 62 (96.9%) |
Criterium 7 – Critically appraised the quality of the evidence base | |||
1. Yes, adequately | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
2. Yes, partially | 2 (100.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 27 (42.2%) |
3. Neither appraised the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 30 (46.9%) |
4. Not applicable (evidence not found) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (10.9%) |
Criterium 8 – Addressed ethical, social and legal considerations | |||
1. Yes | 2 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 25 (39.1%) |
2. No | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 39 (60.9%) |