Mouaddh Abdulmalik Nagi1,2, Pramitha Esha Nirmala Dewi3,4, Montarat Thavorncharoensap5, Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri6. 1. Doctor of Philosophy Program in Social, Economic, and Administrative Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. muadh.ye@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Medical Sciences, Aljanad University for Science and Technology, Taiz, Yemen. muadh.ye@gmail.com. 3. Doctor of Philosophy Program in Social, Economic, and Administrative Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Department of Pharmacy Profession, Faculty of Medicine and health Sciences, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 5. Social and Administrative Pharmacy Excellence Research (SAPER) Unit, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. 6. Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Due to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.
INTRODUCTION: Due to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.
Authors: Islam Eljilany; Faris El-Dahiyat; Louise Elizabeth Curley; Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ahmad Fasseeh; Rita Karam; Mouna Jameleddine; Mohsen George; Finn Børlum Kristensen; Abeer A Al-Rabayah; Abdulaziz H Alsaggabi; Maha El Rabbat; Maryam S Alowayesh; Julia Chamova; Adham Ismail; Sherif Abaza; Zoltán Kaló Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Mouaddh Abdulmalik Nagi; Mustafa Ali Ali Rezq; Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri; Montarat Thavorncharoensap; Pramitha Esha Nirmala Dewi Journal: Glob Health Res Policy Date: 2022-07-25