Prabhakar Pandey1, Rishabh Dev Pandey2, Vatsal Shah2. 1. Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Siro ClinPharm Pvt. Ltd., Thane, Maharashtra, India. Electronic address: prabhakar.pandey@siroclinpharm.com. 2. Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Siro ClinPharm Pvt. Ltd., Thane, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies and identify different variables influencing the quality of these studies conducted in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed with PubMed and Cochrane using different combinations of terms for cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-minimization analyses. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used for quality assessment of included studies. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association of factors with high-quality studies (QHES score ≥75). RESULTS: Of 262 retrieved studies, 128 met the inclusion criteria. The mean QHES score was 67.4 ± 1.35. The distribution of studies in each quality quartile was as follows: high (n = 59 [46.09%]), fair (n = 50 [39.06%]), and poor (n = 19 [14.83%]). Most of the high-quality studies (n = 80 [62.5%]) were conducted in Japan and Australia. Only 11 high-quality studies (18.64%) were published in specialty journals and 4 (6.78%) in Asian journals. Primary authors who had advanced training in health economics were associated with a higher number of high-quality studies (n = 51 [86.44%]). Training of primary authors was significantly associated with high-quality studies (odds ratio 7.1; 95% confidence interval 2.9-19.23). Impact factor of journal, per-capita expenditure on health care, and out-of-pocket expense on health did not have a significant association with high-quality scores. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality pharmacoeconomic research is confined to a few countries of the APAC; it can be improved by advance training of authors in public health or health economics. Also, a greater interest of various stakeholders in funding the research and the introduction of specialty journals in the APAC are warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies and identify different variables influencing the quality of these studies conducted in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed with PubMed and Cochrane using different combinations of terms for cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-minimization analyses. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used for quality assessment of included studies. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association of factors with high-quality studies (QHES score ≥75). RESULTS: Of 262 retrieved studies, 128 met the inclusion criteria. The mean QHES score was 67.4 ± 1.35. The distribution of studies in each quality quartile was as follows: high (n = 59 [46.09%]), fair (n = 50 [39.06%]), and poor (n = 19 [14.83%]). Most of the high-quality studies (n = 80 [62.5%]) were conducted in Japan and Australia. Only 11 high-quality studies (18.64%) were published in specialty journals and 4 (6.78%) in Asian journals. Primary authors who had advanced training in health economics were associated with a higher number of high-quality studies (n = 51 [86.44%]). Training of primary authors was significantly associated with high-quality studies (odds ratio 7.1; 95% confidence interval 2.9-19.23). Impact factor of journal, per-capita expenditure on health care, and out-of-pocket expense on health did not have a significant association with high-quality scores. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality pharmacoeconomic research is confined to a few countries of the APAC; it can be improved by advance training of authors in public health or health economics. Also, a greater interest of various stakeholders in funding the research and the introduction of specialty journals in the APAC are warranted.