A Systematic Review on the Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Publications for China

Characteristics and Quality Appraisal of the Economic Evaluations Done in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluation identifies, measures, values, and compares alternative strategies to efficiently allocate scarce resources. The validity, methodological quality, and generalizability of economic evaluations must be assessed, as poorly designed studies can lead to incorrect conclusions. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the quality and characteristics of published economic evaluations done in Ethiopia, using the Quality of Health Economics Studies (QHES) and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments.

METHODOLOGY

Various electronic databases were searched using different keywords. We included only original studies conducted in Ethiopia that evaluated the cost and consequences of at least two health interventions. Abstracts, treatment guidelines, reviews, expert opinions, and studies that included other countries were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated each study using the QHES and CHEERS instruments and any disagreements were then resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULT

The study included 21 studies published between 2002 and 2021. HIV was the most frequently evaluated medical condition, examined in four (19.06%) of the 21 studies. Seventeen of the studies (80.95%) compared healthcare services or programs, while the other four examined pharmaceutical products. Cost-utility analysis was the economic evaluation technique used in 14 studies (66.67%). Of the studies that disclosed their funding sources, foreign institutions were involved in funding 71.43% of them. Disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) was an outcome metric used in nine (42.86%) studies. The average QHES score of the studies was 82%. Fourteen studies had QHES scores of ≥75% and two had scores of <50%. The studies evaluated using the CHEERS instrument ranged in quality from 42.9% to 92.9%, with an average of 78.23%.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that Ethiopia lacks health economic evaluations, particularly on non-communicable diseases. This indicates that the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Ethiopia is still in its early stages. Additionally, Ethiopian institutions have played a very limited role in funding research, highlighting the importance of active participation from local institutions.

Economic evaluations of non-communicable diseases conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa: a critical review of data sources

BACKGROUND

Policymakers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) face challenging decisions regarding the allocation of health resources. Economic evaluations can help decision makers to determine which health interventions should be funded and or included in their benefits package. A major problem is whether the evaluations incorporated data from sources that are reliable and relevant to the country of interest. We aimed to review the quality of the data sources used in all published economic evaluations for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in SSA.

METHODS

We systematically searched selected databases for all published economic evaluations for CVD and diabetes in SSA. We modified a hierarchy of data sources and used a reference case to measure the adherence to reporting and methodological characteristics, and descriptively analysed author statements.

RESULTS

From 7,297 articles retrieved from the search, we selected 35 for study inclusion. Most were modelled evaluations and almost all focused on pharmacological interventions. The studies adhered to the reporting standards but were less adherent to the methodological standards. The quality of data sources varied. The quality level of evidence in the data domains of resource use and costs were generally considered of high quality, with studies often sourcing information from reliable databases within the same jurisdiction. The authors of most studies referred to data sources in the discussion section of the publications highlighting the challenges of obtaining good quality and locally relevant data.

CONCLUSIONS

The data sources in some domains are considered high quality but there remains a need to make substantial improvements in the methodological adherence and overall quality of data sources to provide evidence that is sufficiently robust to support decision making in SSA within the context of UHC and health benefits plans. Many SSA governments will need to strengthen and build their capacity to conduct economic evaluations of interventions and health technology assessment for improved priority setting. This capacity building includes enhancing local infrastructures for routine data production and management. If many of the policy makers are using economic evaluations to guide resource allocation, it is imperative that the evidence used is of the feasibly highest quality.

A retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study to critically appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting

Background:

The reporting quality of economic research could benefit from enhanced quality assurance procedures. At present, there are small numbers of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting. There is not much clarity about the reporting quality of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting.

Objective:

The primary objective is to of this study was to appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting and published between January 2014 and December 2018.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. The MEDLINE in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were systematically searched to search for economic evaluations. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards statement checklist was utilized to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. For grading the quality of the included health economic assessments, the Quality of Health Evaluation Studies (QHES) instrument was used.

Results:

Thirty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean QHES score was 80.26 (standard deviation = 8.06). Twenty-five (83.33%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.92) of the article mentioned perspective of the study. Twenty-nine (96.66%, 95% CI: 0.83–0.99) of the article described the effects of uncertainty for all input parameters. Twenty (66.66%, 95% CI: 0.48–0.80) of the article reported all funding sources.

Conclusions:

Overall, the quality of reporting of the included health economic studies was good, which reemphasizes their usefulness in supporting the decision-making procedure about better medicine. The finding of this study will be a small step toward ensuring robust and high-quality health economics data in India.

Taking stock of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare in China

Introduction

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is playing an increasingly important role in informing healthcare decision-making in China. This study aims to review the published literature on CEA in mainland China and describe its characteristics and evolution. We provide recommendations on the future direction of CEA as a methodology and as a tool to support healthcare decision-making in China.

Methods

English-language cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost-per-disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) publications relating to mainland China were reviewed using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry through 2017. Study features were summarised using descriptive statistics. Changes in study methodology over time were analysed by trend test, and study characteristics influencing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost-per-QALY studies were investigated using logistic regression.

Results

170 studies were identified reporting CEA for mainland China (cost/QALY=125, cost/DALY=45) since 1998. The number and quality of studies has increased over the past two decades, with significantly more cost-per-QALY studies compared with cost-per-DALY studies (p<0.0001) and more studies with authors affiliated with Chinese institutions (p=0.0002). The average quality score was 5.04 out of 7 for cost-per-QALY and 4.70 for cost-per-DALY studies based on Registry reviewers’ subjective assessment of overall quality (methods, assumptions and reporting practices). The median ICER reported for interventions for oncology patients was higher (US$26 694 per QALY) than the median ICER reported for all interventions (US$11 503 per QALY). Oncology interventions were associated with the likelihood of reporting higher ICERs than the median ICER (p=0.003).

Conclusion

The number of English-language published CEA studies relating to China has grown rapidly over the past 20 years. In terms of quality, the China studies compare favourably with international studies, although they remain a small proportion of studies globally.

A Systematic Review on the Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Publications in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Egypt faces many challenges when matching patient needs with available resources. Consequently, there has been an increasing interest in pharmacoeconomics as an aid tool in health decision-making to better allocate resources.

OBJECTIVES

To review and evaluate the volume and the quality of published pharmacoeconomic studies in Egypt.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in August 2018 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library to identify published Egyptian pharmacoeconomic studies. Articles were included if they were original economic studies, written and published in English, and conducted in Egypt. Each article was assessed independently by two reviewers using the 100-point Quality of Health Evaluation Studies (QHES) scale.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies published between 2002 and 2017 were included in the review. Most of them were cost-effectiveness analyses (60%). The minority used secondary data (33.3%) or adopted modeling techniques (40%). The mean QHES score of the included studies was 70.1 ± 21.8, and approximately 40% of them had a QHES score of more than 80.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt are still in their infancy. The Egyptian guidelines for economic evaluation should be adopted and the EQ-5D-5L value sets should be developed to increase the quality of economic research.

Quality Assessment of Published Articles in Iranian Journals Related to Economic Evaluation in Health Care Programs Based on Drummond's Checklist: A Narrative Review

Health economic evaluation research plays an important role in selecting cost-effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of published articles in Iranian journals related to economic evaluation in health care programs based on Drummond's checklist in terms of numbers, features, and quality. In the present review study, published articles (Persian and English) in Iranian journals related to economic evaluation in health care programs were searched using electronic databases. In addition, the methodological quality of articles' structure was analyzed by Drummond's standard checklist. Based on the inclusion criteria, the search of databases resulted in 27 articles that fully covered economic evaluation in health care programs. A review of articles in accordance with Drummond's criteria showed that the majority of studies had flaws. The most common methodological weakness in the articles was in terms of cost calculation and valuation. Considering such methodological faults in these studies, it is anticipated that these studies would not provide an appropriate feedback to policy makers to allocate health care resources correctly and select suitable cost-effective interventions. Therefore, researchers are required to comply with the standard guidelines in order to better execute and report on economic evaluation studies.

PHARMACOECONOMIC STUDIES IN WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES: REPORTING COMPLETENESS

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent of reporting necessary information in published health economic research in World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Countries (WHO EMC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify pharmacoeconomic studies conducted in WHO EMC. The inclusion criteria for the studies were: (i) original studies, (ii) compared pharmaceutical services or drugs, (iii) conducted in WHO EMC, (iv) manuscript published in English. The articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of seventeen studies were included, each of which were published in seventeen different journals. The mean CHEERS checklist score was 16 ± 4. Most studies were published in journals outside WHO EMC (n = 12; 71 percent). Cost-effectiveness (n = 5; 29 percent) and cost-utility analyses (n = 5; 29 percent) were the most frequently used methods of economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacoeconomic studies in WHO EMC are limited and sometimes incomplete. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals should be encouraged in WHO EMC to ensure the appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of pharmacoeconomic publications in the literature from China has risen rapidly, but the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications from China has not been analyzed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify all recent pharmacoeconomic publications from China, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and EmBase) were searched for original articles published up to December 31, 2014. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement including 24 items was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles.

RESULTS

Of 1046 articles identified, 32 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were published in 23 different journals. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 18.7 (SD = 4.33) out of 24 (range 9-23.5). There was an increasing trend of pharmacoeconomic publications and reporting quality over years from 2003 to 2014. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, the reporting quality for the items including "title," "comparators of method," and "measurement of effectiveness" are quite low, with less than 50% of studies fully satisfying these reporting standards. In contrast, reporting was good for the items including "introduction," "study perspective," "choice of health outcomes," "study parameters," "characterizing heterogeneity," and "discussion," with more than 75% of the articles satisfying these reporting criteria. The remaining items fell in between these 2 extremes, with 50% to 75% of studies satisfying these criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests the need for improvement in a number of reporting criteria. But the criteria for which reporting quality was low seem to be limitations that would be straightforward to correct in future studies.