The use of pharmacoeconomic evidence to support formulary decision making in Saudi Arabia: Methodological recommendations

The effectiveness and pharmacoeconomic study of using different corticosteroids in the treatment of hypersensitivity pneumonitis

PURPOSE

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are caused by inflammation and/or fibrosis of alveolar walls resulting in impaired gas exchange. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is the third most common type of ILDs. Corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for HP. The use of intramuscular (IM) betamethasone or intravenous (IV) dexamethasone as weekly pulse doses has shown higher benefit than daily oral prednisolone for HP patients. The aim of this study is to directly compare different corticosteroids in terms of effectiveness and in monetary values and perform an economic evaluation.

METHODS

One hundred and seven patients were tested for pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and inflammatory markers to assess the treatment effectiveness. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed. ICERs between 3 treatment groups were calculated.

RESULTS

Post treatment, Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) levels significantly improved in betamethasone group from 723.22 ± 218.18 U/ml to 554.48 ± 129.69 U/ml (p = 0.001). A significant improvement in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) occurred in the dexamethasone group from 56.12 ± 27.97 mm to 30.06 ± 16.04 mm (p = 0.048). A significant improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and six-minute walk distance (6MWD) was observed within the three treatment groups. A significant improvement in oxygen desaturation percentage (SpO2) occurred within dexamethasone and betamethasone groups. Betamethasone and dexamethasone were found more cost-effective than prednisolone as their ICERs fell in quadrant C. Furthermore, ICER between betamethasone and dexamethasone was performed; a small difference in cost was found compared to the higher benefit of betamethasone.

CONCLUSION

Betamethasone and dexamethasone were found to be more effective than prednisolone in improving the inflammatory reaction and the clinical features of HP patients. Betamethasone was found to be the best intervention in terms of cost against the effect.

A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

METHODS

The study was conducted in 3 phases. In phase I, a targeted literature review was performed to gather relevant information on the implementation of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Phase II was a cross-sectional survey, conducted to obtain insights from different stakeholders and key opinion leaders on specific topics from the KSA perspective. Phase III included a round-table discussion involving experts to validate the results obtained in the phase II survey and further elaborate on specific requirements that may be critical for developing the first national MCDA framework in the KSA.

RESULTS

All the key opinion leaders involved in the study acknowledged the importance of implementing MCDA in the KSA. The Ministry of Health was assigned the responsibility of chairing the MCDA decision process. The experts selected the quantitative, qualitative, and economic criteria to be considered for the MCDA framework. The stakeholders decided to initiate a pilot phase using the deliberative MCDA methodology for the assessment of orphan drugs based on the selected criteria for a period of 1 year and then reevaluate the need to adapt the pragmatic MCDA model.

CONCLUSION

This article describes the novel initiative that examined the feasibility and process required for the development of the first MCDA framework in the KSA to support healthcare decision making.

Informing a cost-effectiveness threshold for Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 aims to reform health care across the Kingdom, with health technology assessment being adopted as one tool promising to improve the efficiency with which resources are used. An understanding of the opportunity costs of reimbursement decisions is key to fulfilling this promise and can be used to inform a cost-effectiveness threshold. This paper is the first to provide a range of estimates of this using existing evidence extrapolated to the context of Saudi Arabia.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We use four approaches to estimate the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare system; drawing from existing evidence provided by a cross-country analysis, two alternative estimates from the UK context, and based on extrapolating a UK estimate using evidence on the income elasticity of the value of health. Consequences of estimation error are explored.

RESULTS

Based on the four approaches, we find a range of SAR 42,046 per QALY gained (48% of GDP per capita) to SAR 215,120 per QALY gained (246% of GDP per capita). Calculated potential central estimates from the average of estimated health gains based on each source gives a range of SAR 50,000-75,000. The results are in line with estimates from the emerging literature from across the world.

CONCLUSION

A cost-effectiveness threshold reflecting health opportunity costs can aid decision-making. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold based on the range SAR 50,000 to 75,000 per QALY gained would ensure that resource allocation decisions in healthcare can in be informed in a way that accounts for health opportunity costs.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation is that it is not based on a within-country study for Saudi Arabia, which represents a promising line of future work.

Attitude and perception of pharmacists and healthcare professionals about the criteria used in drug formulary selection in the United Arab Emirates

BACKGROUND

There is lack of both resources and expertise explains the limited extent to which pharmacoeconomic evidence is used in formulary decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The present study aims to assess attitude and perceptions toward the criteria used to select formulary drugs among UAE healthcare organizations.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted amongst the licensed physicians in all specialties, all pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with a minimum of 3 month experience those registered with Ministry of health and prevention and those working in the private sector in the UAE. Participants are sent an email containing a validated web-based electronic link to access the questionnaire. The questionnaire composed of two sections is used to assess the healthcare professionals' attitude and perceptions regarding the criteria used to select formulary drugs. Data analysis were done using SPSS Version 24.

RESULTS

A total of 866 respondents participated in the study and completed the whole questionnaire. The average attitude score about the criteria used in drug formulary selection was 84.5% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [83.9%, 85.4%]. Of the total participants, 27 (3.1%) had poor attitude about the criteria used in drug formulary selection, 240 (27.7%) had moderate attitude and 599 (69.2%) had good attitude. The results of statistical modeling showed that education level, area of expertise and age were jointly highly associated with attitude about the criteria used in drug formulary selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that pharmacists and Healthcare professionals had a good attitude about the criteria used in drug formulary selection in the United Arab Emirates. This study purposed to provide Emirate pharmacy and therapeutics policy makers with a clear criterion of best practice related to methodological recommendations to help in increasing the utilization and implementation of pharmacoeconomic evidence in the drug formulary selection process.

Health Economic Publications From the Middle East and North Africa Region: A Scoping Review of the Volume and Methods of Research

INTRODUCTION

We reviewed the scope of countries, diseases, technologies, and methods involved in the health economic evaluations published in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were followed. A PubMed search was conducted up to December 15, 2019. English language full-text articles were included if they reported original research on humans; involved the local population from Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, or Yemen; reported costs; and involved a full or partial health economic analysis comparing alternative health technologies. Data on publication year, country of origin, disease area according to ICD-10, type of health technology, and applied methods were extracted.

RESULTS

From 105 eligible articles, 57.1% were published between 2015 and 2019. Egypt (30.5%) and Saudi Arabia (27.6%) were the most frequently involved countries. Infectious diseases were most often studied (27.6%). The assessed technology was a system (eg, infection control, screening, coverage/access, hospital management, or healthcare delivery program) in 41.9% of studies. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most frequent method (29.5%) and was growing rapidly. Health system perspective was adopted in 52.4% of studies, whereas societal perspective was scarce (8.6%). The majority of studies (46.7%) were published in Scimago Q1 journals. Over half of the studies (54.2%) did not report or did not have a funding source.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2015, health economic analysis became more frequent in the MENA region, providing input to value-based health policy and financing. For further growth, in addition to the development of the institutional background, valid and more standardized local cost and outcome data should be available.

Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These antibiotics share a similar spectrum of activity. There are conflicting reviews with regard to the relative cost-effectiveness of these two agents. Methods: A retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 88 patients of IC versus MEM in moderate to severe infections was performed, applying cost-minimization analysis (CMA) methods. In accordance with CMA methods, the assumption of equivalent efficacy was first demonstrated by literature retrieved and appraised. Adult patients (⩾18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe infections, including skin and skin structure infections (SSIs), sepsis, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), who were prescribed IC 500 mg every six hours intravenously (2 g per day) or MEM 1 g every eight hours (3 g per day), were included in the study. Only direct costs related to the management of the infections were included, in accordance with a payer perspective. Results: Overall there was no difference in the mean total daily costs between IC (SAR 4784.46, 95% CI 4140.68, 5428.24) and MEM (4390.14, 95% CI 3785.82, 4994.45; p = 0.37). A significantly lower medicine acquisition cost per vial of IC was observed when compared to MEM, however there was a significantly higher cost attached to administration sets used in the IC group than the MEM group. Consultation, nursing and physician costs were not significantly different between the groups. No differences were observed in costs associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). Conclusion: This study has shown that while acquisition costs of IC at a dose of 500 mg q6 h may be lower than for MEM 1 g q8 h, mean total costs per day were not significantly different between IC and MEM, indicating that medicine costs are only a small element of the overall costs of managing moderate to severe infections.