The Portuguese healthcare system is often portrayed as a National Health Service (NHS) model, characterized by universal coverage, comprehensive benefits, nearly free services, national tax financing, and public ownership or control of the factors of production. However, in reality the system fails to accomplish these features in a complete way. There coexist a number of occupation-related health insurance schemes that were originally intended to be integrated into the NHS. In addition, in key areas the NHS does not provide the wide range of services it promises. The public sector has a predominant role in the provision of hospital stays and general practitioner consultations, but the private sector provides a major portion of specialist consultations, dental consultations, and diagnostic services. Major problems in the system led to health reforms in the 1990s. New reform proposals include some specific steps concerning health technology, including standards for medical equipment based on quality, geographic distribution, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. A new National Plan of Health Equipment was completed in 1998, aimed at improving the distribution of equipment. Despite reforms, healthcare expenditures continue to rise. There is general agreement that gains in efficiency could be made. This situation is beginning to encourage interest in health technology assessment (HTA) in Portugal, although these activities are not yet very developed. Recently, legislation requiring presentation of economic evaluations for new pharmaceutical products was enacted. Present plans also call for the creation in the future of a national agency for HTA.

Objectives: The convergent validity between utility assessment methods was assessed.

Methods: Investigated were patients with esophageal cancer treated surgically with curative intent. Patients were interviewed in a period from 3 to 12 months after surgical resection. Patients evaluated their actual health and seven other states. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) utilities were obtained for the health states in an interview. Patients also indicated whether or not they preferred death to living in a health state (worse than dead [WTD] preferences).

Results: Fifty patients completed the interview. Convergent validity was excellent at the aggregate and individual level. However, the relation between VAS and SG differed strongly across individuals. On a scale from 0 (dead) to 100 (perfect health), SG scores were lower for patients with WTD preferences (mean difference d=35; p=.002); however, VAS scores did not vary by WTD preferences.

Conclusions: In general, there is good agreement between VAS and SG measures, although patients disagree about how the VAS and SG are related. The standard gamble varied by WTD preferences, however, the VAS did not.

This article examines the meaning of appropriate technology in the World Health Organization's comprehensive definition of primary care. The author concludes that broad-ranging aspects of health maintenance, such as public health, personal lifestyles, and scientific research, as well as traditional diagnostic and therapeutic practices, need to be subjected to clear and careful scrutiny. It is vital that the results of these technology assessment studies be disseminated as widely as possible to both health care professionals and the public.

Scientific reports should be orderly, clear, and unambiguous. Clarity is even more important for health technology assessments (HTAs), which aim at supplying reliable and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost of healthcare interventions. Increasingly assessments also provide information about the effects of technologies on organization of care, as well as relevant legal, social, and ethical considerations.

Objectives: Some experts have promoted preparticipative cardiovascular screening programs for young athletes and have claimed that such programs were cost-effective without performing a critical analysis of studies supporting this statement. In this systematic review, a critical assessment of economic evaluations on these programs is performed to determine if they really provide value for money.

Methods: A systematic review of economic evaluations was performed on December 24, 2014. Web sites of health technology assessment agencies, the Cochrane database of systematic review, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, Psychinfo, and EconLit were searched to retrieve (reviews of) economic evaluations. No language or time restrictions were imposed and predefined selection criteria were used. Selected studies were critically assessed applying a structured data extraction sheet.

Results: Five relevant economic evaluations were critically assessed. Results of these studies were mixed. However, those in favor of screening made (methodological) incorrect choices, of which the most important one was not taking into account a no-screening alternative as comparator. Compared with no screening, other strategies (history and physical examination or history and physical examination plus electrocardiogram) were not considered cost-effective.

Conclusions: Results of primary economic evaluations should not be blindly copied without critical assessment. Economic evaluations in this field lack the support of robust evidence. Negative consequences of screening (false positive findings, overtreatment) should also be taken into account and may cause more harm than good. A mass screening of young athletes for cardiovascular diseases does not provide value for money and should be discouraged.

Background: The matching of favorable human leukocyte antigen (HLA) combinations is rarely performed in penetrating keratoplasty procedures for primary prophylaxis of immune reactions. However, clinical studies suggest that the incidence of graft rejection decreases substantially when patients receive favorably matched grafts.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of HLA matching for patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty in everyday clinical practice.

Methods: In the absence of a randomized controlled clinical trial, we used administrative data from the Freiburg University Eye Hospital in Germany. Our study population consisted of all patients who underwent their first keratoplasty between 11/2003 and 01/2010 and for whom information on HLA histocompatibility was available. We used propensity score matching to estimate a causal effect of favorable HLA matching, parametric survival regression techniques to predict graft survival and expert opinion to model incremental cost for HLA matching. Because the availability of favorable HLA histocompatibility ultimately depends on the patients’ HLA phenotype, we modeled the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as a function of the probability that a patient will receive a favorably matched HLA, and used expert opinion to set a point estimate.

Results: We predicted that corneal grafts with favorable HLA matching were associated with improved rejection-free graft survival time (more than 1,000 days). We estimated the incremental cost of HLA matching at EUR 1,200 and the ICER at EUR 4.62 per additional day of graft survival.

Conclusions: The ICER of HLA matching is acceptable, given the high cost of alternative treatment and the shortage of corneal donors in Germany.

Objectives: The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial (CEP) prostheses are the type of bioprostheses most used worldwide. Although they were designed to minimize the rate of valve deterioration and reoperation, their clinical superiority over other prostheses models still lacks confirmation. The objective of this study was to evaluate its effectiveness.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases. Operative mortality, overall mortality and reoperation rates after heart valve surgery were compared between the use of CEP and other cardiac prostheses. Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion and extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The GRADE criterion was used to assess the evidence quality.

Results: A total of twenty-eight studies were selected, including 19,615 individuals. The studies presented a high heterogeneity and low quality of evidence what limited the reliability of the results. The pooled data from the selected studies did not demonstrate significant differences between CEP and porcine, pericardial or stentless prostheses regarding operative mortality, overall mortality and reoperation rates. However, the pooled data from 3 observational trials pointed out a higher risk for reoperation after valve replacement using CEP prostheses against mechanical prostheses (OR 4.92 [95 percent confidence interval 2.43–9.96]).

Conclusions: The current data present in the literature still does not support a clinical advantage for the use of CEP prostheses over other bioprostheses. The quality of the studies in the literature is limited and further studies are needed to address if CEP prostheses will have a clinical advantage over other prostheses.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to collect all systematic reviews on invasive strategies for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and reanalyze the data in these reviews to reach combined estimates, as well as to make predictions on the effectiveness and risk of harm so as to facilitate relevant decision making in health care.

Methods: The data sources used were the following electronic databases, searched from 1994 to September 2004: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R), and PubMed (2000 to 2004). References to the identified systematic reviews were checked. An ancillary search to identify recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering the period from January 2003 to January 2006 was done in MEDLINE(R). We included systematic reviews of RCTs on patients with ACS. In unstable angina and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), eligible reviews had to compare early routine invasive strategy with early selective invasive strategy. In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a comparison between primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and thrombolytic therapy was required. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed, and a standardized data extraction form was used. Results for the main outcomes of the RCTs in the reviews were reanalyzed. An additional search of those RCTs not included in the meta-analyses was performed for UA/NSTEMI and short-term morality data on STEMI. Bayesian models were constructed to estimate the uncertainty about a possible treatment effect and to make predictions and probability statements. Main results are based on these analyses. Mortality was considered as the primary outcome measure.

Results: One systematic review on invasive strategies was identified for UA/NSTEMI and nine on invasive strategies for STEMI. Five reviews of the latter that were published after the year 2000 were included for the final analysis. The median quality score was 10.5 (range, 7–13; n = 6) on a scale from 0 to 18 points. An updated literature search identified one further RCT on UA/NSTEMI. Regarding NSTEMI and mortality, the average risk difference favoring an early invasive treatment strategy compared with early conservative strategy was .6 percent (95 percent credible interval [CrI], −2.1 to 1.0). Predicted risk (relative risk/risk difference scales) of doing harm was 26.7/26.6 percent. Regarding STEMI and mortality, the absolute risk reduction in favor of primary PCI over thrombolysis was 4.1 percent (95 percent CrI, −7.1 to −1.1) when PCI was compared with streptokinase and 1.2 percent (95 percent CrI, −2.7 to .2) when compared with fibrin-specific thrombolytics. Predicted risk of harm was 8.9/5.3 percent and 8.0/13.3 percent, respectively.

Conclusions: There seems to be at present no solid evidence for survival benefit on early invasive strategy for UA/NSTEMI as a broad diagnostic group, and the risk of doing harm should be considered. Also, the evidence for PCI to decrease early mortality after STEMI is scanty. Estimations of predicted harm may further aid decisions on whether to implement the new treatment over the old one. It may also give an additional dimension for interpreting the results of any meta-analysis.

Objective: The rise in the number of implantations of cardiac pacemakers is of some concern to decision makers in the health sector. We assessed the intrinsic and relative clinical efficacy of cardiac pacemakers in current clinical indications to find out whether scientific or clinical arguments might justify differences in market prices.

Methods: We retrieved papers on cardiac pacing (January 1993–April 1998) from five databases (MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PASCAL). The citations in these papers were used to seek further articles. We selected the articles that met the criteria of evidence-based medicine (EBM) (randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials) and classified them according to clinical indication and type of evaluation (either of the intrinsic efficacy of a pacemaker versus a control or of the relative efficacy of different pacing modes).

Results: A total of 542 references were retrieved, but under 10% met our EBM criteria. Very few were comparative studies versus controls; most were recent and tended to use endpoints other than survival. Clinical efficacy was not proven on the basis of EBM criteria, even in common indications (e.g., sick sinus syndrome). Studies comparing different pacing modes were rarely randomized and did not provide consistent evidence for the superiority of any pacing mode in a given indication.

Conclusions: Knowledge of the natural history of the diseases for which cardiac pacing is indicated is scarce. There is an approximately 20-year gap between technological progress and clinical evaluation that cannot be easily bridged because of methodologic difficulties and ethical issues. Current guidelines on pacemaker use either rely on expert opinion or highlight present inadequacies and make recommendations for future work. Available clinical efficacy data do not justify the wide differences in the price of cardiac pacemakers.