Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Augusto Afonso Guerra-Júnior (a1) (a2), Lívia Lovato Pires de Lemos (a1) (a3), Brian Godman (a4) (a5), Marion Bennie (a4), Cláudia Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro (a6), Juliana Alvares (a1) (a2), Aine Heaney (a7), Carlos Alberto Vassallo (a8), Björn Wettermark (a9) (a10), Gaizka Benguria-Arrate (a11), Iñaki Gutierrez-Ibarluzea (a11), Vania Cristina Canuto Santos (a12), Clarice Alegre Petramale (a12) and Fransciso de Assis Acurcio (a1) (a13)...


Objectives: Health technology financing is often based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are often the same ones used for licensing. Because they are designed to show the best possible results, typically Phase III studies are conducted under ideal and highly controlled conditions. Consequently, it is not surprising that technologies do not always perform in real life in the same way as controlled conditions. Because financing (and price paid) decisions can be made with overestimated results, health authorities need to ask whether health systems achieve the results they expect when they choose to pay for a technology. The optimal way to answer this question is to assess the performance of financed technologies in real-world settings. Health technology performance assessment (HTpA) refers to the systematic evaluation of the properties, effects, and/or impact of a health intervention or health technology in the real world to provide information for investment/disinvestment decisions and clinical guideline updates. The objective is to describe the development and principal aspects of the Guideline for HTpA commissioned by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.

Methods: Our methods used include extensive literature review, refinement with experts across countries, and public consultation.

Results: A comprehensive guideline was developed, which has been adopted by the Brazilian government.

Conclusion: We believe the guideline, with its particular focus on disinvestment, along with the creation of a specific program for HTpA, will allow the institutionalization and continuous improvement of the scientific methods to use real-world evidence to optimize available resources not only in Brazil but across countries.



Hide All
1. Paris, V, Belloni, A. Value in pharmaceutical pricing: OECD Health Working Papers, No. 63: OECD Publishing; 2013. (accessed October 15, 2015).
2. Barnieh, L, Manns, B, Harris, A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health. 2014;17:98-108.
3. Tugwell, P, Knottnerus, JA. Is the ‘Evidence-Pyramid’ now dead? J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:1247-1250.
4. Malmstrom, RE, Godman, BB, Diogene, E, et al. Dabigatran - A case history demonstrating the need for comprehensive approaches to optimize the use of new drugs. Front Pharmacol. 2013;4:39.
5. Gold, R, Kappos, L, Arnold, DL, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1098-1107.
6. Joppi, R, Cinconze, E, Mezzalira, L, et al. Hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those included in recent trials on novel oral anticoagulants: A population-based study. Eur J Intern Med. 2013;24:318-323.
7. Divittorio, G, Jackson, KL, Chindalore, VL, Welker, W, Walker, JB. Examining the relationship between bone mineral density and fracture risk reduction during pharmacologic treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26:104-114.
8. Prasad, V, Kim, C, Burotto, M, Vandross, A. The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1389-1398.
9. Svensson, S, Menkes, DB, Lexchin, J. Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: A cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:611-612.
10. Henshall, C, Sansom, L, Eichler, H-G, et al. Understanding the role and evidence expectations of health technology assessment and coverage/payer bodies: What are they looking for, and how and why does this differ from what regulators require? Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48:341-346.
11. Downing, NS, Aminawung, JA, Shah, ND, Krumholz, HM, Ross, JS. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005–2012. JAMA. 2014;311:368-377.
12. Avorn, J, Kesselheim, AS. The 21st Century Cures Act–Will it take us back in time? N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2473-2475.
13. Anderson, ML, Chiswell, K, Peterson, ED, Tasneem, A, Topping, J, Califf, RM. Compliance with results reporting at N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1031-1039.
14. Gafni, A, Birch, S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2091-2100.
15. McCabe, C, Claxton, K, Culyer, AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: What it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733-744.
16. Howard, DH, Bach, P, Berndt, ER, Conti, RM. Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29:139-162.
17. Simoens, S, Picavet, E, Dooms, M, Cassiman, D, Morel, T. Cost-effectiveness assessment of orphan drugs: A scientific and political conundrum. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1-3.
18. Raftery, JP. NICE's cost-effectiveness range: Should it be lowered? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:613-615.
19. Ferrario, A, Kanavos, P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: The European experience. London School of Economics and Political Science. 2013;154. (accessed November 1, 2016).
20. Caires de Souza, AL, de Assis Acurcio, F, Guerra Junior, AA, Rezende Macedo do Nascimento, RC, Godman, B, Diniz, LM. Insulin glargine in a Brazilian state: Should the government disinvest? An assessment based on a systematic review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12: 19-32.
21. Gomes, RM, Guerra Júnior, AA, Lemos, LL, et al. Tenyear kidney transplant survival of cyclosporine- or tacrolimus-treated patients in Brazil. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2016;9:991-999.
22. Raaschou, P, Simard, JF, Holmqvist, M, Askling, J, Group, AS. Rheumatoid arthritis, antitumour necrosis factor therapy, and risk of malignant melanoma: Nationwide population based prospective cohort study from Sweden. BMJ. 2013;346:f1939.
23. de Oliveira Costa, J, Almeida-Brasil, CC, Godman, B, et al. Implementation of clinical guidelines in Brazil: Should academic detailing be used? JPHSR. 2016;7:105-115.
24. Daniels, T, Williams, I, Robinson, S, Spence, K. Tackling disinvestment in health care services. The views of resource allocators in the English NHS. J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27:762-780.
25. Frønsdal, KB, Facey, K, Klemp, M, Norderhaug, IN, Mørland, B, Røttingen, JA. Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:309-316.
26. Elshaug, AG, Moss, JR, Littlejohns, P, Karnon, J, Merlin, TL, Hiller, JE. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190:269-273.
27. Husereau, D, Boucher, M, Noorani, H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:341-347.
28. Parkinson, B, Sermet, C, Clement, F, et al. Disinvestment and value-based purchasing strategies for pharmaceuticals: An international review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:905-924.
29. Ford, I, Murray, H, McCowan, C, Packard, CJ. Long-term safety and efficacy of lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statin therapy: 20-year follow-up of West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Circulation. 2016;133:1073-1080



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed