Search

Summary Background India faces a high burden of diabetes and hypertension. Currently, there is a dearth of economic evidence about screening programmes, affected age groups, and frequency of screening for these diseases in Indian settings. We assessed the cost effectiveness of population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension compared with current practice in India for different scenarios, according to type of screening test, population age group, and pattern of health-care use. Methods We used a hybrid decision model (decision tree and Markov model) to estimate the lifetime costs and consequences from a societal perspective. A meta-analysis was done to assess the effectiveness of population-based screening. Primary data were collected from two Indian states (Haryana and Tamil Nadu) to assess the cost of screening. The data from the National Health System Cost Database and the Costing of Health Services in India study were used to determine the health system cost of diagnostic tests and cost of treating diabetes or hypertension and their complications. A total of 962 patients were recruited to assess out-of-pocket expenditure and quality of life. Parameter uncertainty was evaluated using univariate and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, we estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with alternative scenarios of scaling up primary health care through a health and wellness centre programme for the treatment of diabetes and hypertension. Findings The incremental cost per QALY gained across various strategies for population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension ranged from US$0·02 million to $0·03 million. At the current pattern of health services use, none of the screening strategies of annual screening, screening every 3 years, and screening every 5 years was cost-effective at a threshold of 1-time per capita gross domestic product in India. In the scenario in which health and wellness centres provided primary care to 20% of patients who were newly diagnosed with uncomplicated diabetes or hypertension, screening the group aged between 30 and 65 years every 5 years or 3 years for either diabetes, hypertension, or a comorbid state (both diabetes and hypertension) became cost-effective. If the share of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed uncomplicated diabetes or hypertension at health and wellness centres increases to 70%, from the existing 4% at subcentres and primary health centres, annual population-based screening becomes a cost saving strategy. Interpretation Population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension in India could potentially reduce time to diagnosis and treatment and be cost-effective if it is linked to comprehensive primary health care through health and wellness centres for provision of treatment to patients who screen positive. Funding Department of Health Research, Government of India.

Introduction Despite the documented benefits of using health technology assessments (HTA) to inform resource allocation in health care systems, HTA remains underused, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A survey of global health practitioners was conducted to reveal the top reasons (“excuses”) that they had heard from colleagues, policymakers or other stakeholders for not using HTA in their settings. Methods There were 193 respondents to the survey. Most responses were from individuals in research organisations (37%), ministries of health (27%) and other government agencies (14%). Participants came from Southeast Asia (40%), the Western Pacific (30%), Africa (15%), Europe (7%), the Americas (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%). Results The top five reasons encountered by respondents related to lack of data, lack of technical skills for HTA, the technocratic nature of the work, the lack of explicit decision rules and the perception that HTA puts a “price on life”. Conclusions This study aimed to understand and address the top reasons for not using HTA. They fall into three categories: (1) misconceptions about HTA; (2) feasibility issues; and (3) values, attitudes and politics. Previous literature has shown that these reasons can be addressed when identified, and even imperfect HTA analyses can provide useful information to a decision-maker.

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by the widespread and often indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and the environment. In 2015, the World Health Organization recognised AMR as one of the top ten global health threats, due to its potential to neutralise humanity’s advancements in western medicine by enabling the emergence of new strains of existing pathogens, many of which have no available treatments. Over the past decade, several countries, including those in low- and middle-income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, economic evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions remains weak. To address this evidence gap, we will conduct a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different AMR interventions. Methods We aim to conduct a systematic literature review of all available economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR and will provide a narrative synthesis of our findings. Systematic searches for relevant studies will be performed across all suitable databases as well as in grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All economic evaluation studies will be included as long as they report an economic outcome and have stated that the analysed intervention will reduce antimicrobial resistance or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Those studies reporting clinical endpoints alone will be excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Discussion The review will be one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions, an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR. The findings will enable policy and decision-makers, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to better use available resources when selecting interventions to address AMR burdens, Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020190310

With vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) being introduced in countries across the world, policy makers are facing many practical considerations about how best to implement a vaccination programme. The supply of vaccines is insufficient for the global population, so decisions must be made as to which groups are prioritised for any vaccination and when. Furthermore, the aims of vaccination programmes will differ between countries, with some prioritising economic benefits that could stem from the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions and others seeking simply to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. This paper aims to share the experiences and lessons learned from conducting economic evaluations in Singapore and Thailand on hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines to provide a basis for other countries to develop their own contextualised economic evaluations, with particular focus on the key uncertainties, technical challenges, and characteristics that modellers should consider in partnership with key stakeholders. Which vaccines, vaccination strategies, and policy responses are most economically beneficial remains uncertain. It is therefore important for all governments to conduct their own analyses to inform local policy responses to COVID-19, including the implementation of COVID-19 vaccines in both the short and the long run. It is essential that such studies are designed, and ideally conducted, before vaccines are introduced so that policy decisions and implementation procedures are not delayed. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-021-00661-5.

Introduction This study aimed to compare the cost utility of concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) to CCRT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT/ACT) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) using provider and societal viewpoints. Methods Data from our trial which was a multi-centre study evaluating the efficacy of ACT compared to CCRT/ACT were entered into a decision tree model. The data included clinical probability, direct medical and non-medical costs, and utility obtained from the patients. The total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for a time horizon of 3 years. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Results The cost of CCRT and CCRT/ACT was approximately 3,058 and 6,896 USD and 4,309 and 7,480 USD from provider and from societal viewpoints, respectively. The QALYs for CCRT and CCRT/ACT were 2.31480 and 2.32045, respectively. The ICER was 569,575 USD per QALY. For stage III-IVA LACC, the ICER was 28,050 USD per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost of ACT was the most significant influential parameter on the ICER. The ICER would be 0.26-fold lower if the cost of ACT was reduced by 25%. At the current ceiling threshold of 5,000 USD/QALY, CCRT had a 100% probability of being the best option. Conclusions In the Thai context, CCRT is more cost effective than CCRT/ACT for stage IIB-IVA LACC. CCRT/ACT may be considered only for stage III-IVA LACC because it has a lower ICER than other types of LACC.

As economic evaluation becomes increasingly essential to support universal health coverage (UHC), we aim to understand the growth, characteristics, and quality of cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for Africa and to assess institutional capacity and relationship patterns among authors. We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries and four databases to identify CEAs for Africa. After extracting relevant information, we examined study characteristics, cost‐effectiveness ratios, individual and institutional contribution to the literature, and network dyads at the author, institution, and country levels. The 358 identified CEAs for Africa primarily focused on sub‐Saharan Africa (96%) and interventions for communicable diseases (77%). Of 2,121 intervention‐specific ratios, 8% were deemed cost‐saving, and most evaluated immunizations strategies. As 64% of studies included at least one African author, we observed widespread collaboration among international researchers and institutions. However, only 23% of first authors were affiliated with African institutions. The top producers of CEAs among African institutions are more adherent to methodological and reporting guidelines. Although economic evidence in Africa has grown substantially, the capacity for generating such evidence remains limited. Increasing the ability of regional institutions to produce high‐quality evidence and facilitate knowledge transfer among African institutions has the potential to inform prioritization decisions for designing UHC.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country. Methods: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data. Results: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product. Conclusion: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy.

IntroductionSeveral treatment options are available for COVID-19 to date. However, the use of a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary for jurisdictions to contain its spread. Although the implementation cost of NPIs may be low from the healthcare system perspective, it can be costly when considering the indirect costs from the societal perspective. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns have begun in several countries worldwide. Nonetheless, the quantity of vaccines available remain limited over the next 1 to 2 years. A tool for informing vaccine prioritisation that considers both cost and effectiveness will be highly useful. This study aims to identify the most cost-effective combination of COVID-19 response policies, using Singapore as an example.Methods and analysisAn age-stratified Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered model will be used to generate the number of infections stratified by disease severity under different intervention scenarios. Polices of interest include test-trace-isolate, travel restriction, compulsory face mask and hygiene practices, social distancing, dexamethasone/remdesivir therapy and vaccination. The latest phase 3 trial results and the WHO Target Product Profiles for COVID-19 vaccines will be used to model vaccine characteristics. A cost (expected resource utilisation and productivity losses) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) will be attached to these outputs for a cost-utility analysis. The primary outcome measure will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generated from the incremental cost of policy alternatives expressed as a ratio of the incremental benefits (QALYs gained). Efficacy of policy options will be gathered from literature review and from its observed impacts in Singapore. Cost data will be gathered from healthcare institutions, Ministry of Health and published data. Sensitivity analysis such as threshold analysis and scenario analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required for this study. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Background Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role to play in managing the rising demands on health systems. However, creating and running such agencies potentially diverts resources from frontline services. A large number of studies address the question of ‘what is the impact of HTA?’. Several points of heterogeneity in this literature include: purpose of the study, definition of HTA, definition of impact, and scope and rigour of evaluations. Our study seeks to address several limitations in this literature. This study aims to explore the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. In doing so, we consider HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product to build an impact evaluation framework from an international, multi-stakeholder and multi-dimensional perspective. Methods We conducted 9 key informant interviews with experts from the international HTA community. We addressed several questions, informed by existing frameworks of impact within the literature, to understand their perspectives on the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. We analyse data using logic modelling and impact mapping, as tools to understand and visualise mechanisms of change. Findings Our impact mapping highlights several distinct, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms through which the overall impact of an HTA agency is achieved. These are: the effective conduct of HTA studies; effective use of HTA in agenda-setting and policy formulation processes; effective engagement and external communications; good institutional reputation and fit within the healthcare and policy-making system; effective use of HTA as a tool for the negotiation of health technology prices; and the effective implementation of policy change regarding health technologies. We also identify indicators of these effects. Conclusions Our findings and resulting evaluation framework complement and add to existing literature by offering a new perspective on the mechanisms by which HTA agencies generate impact. This new perspective considers HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product, is international, multi-dimensional, and includes multi-stakeholder views. We hope the analysis will be useful to countries interested in managing HTA performance.

Beyond vaccine safety, efficacy and procurement lie licensing and delivery — nations must get ready. Beyond vaccine safety, efficacy and procurement lie licensing and delivery — nations must get ready.

Objective: To estimate and compare the prevalences of anxiety at first and subsequent pregnancies and explore its associated factors.Material and Methods: The study was conducted among multiparous women aged

A trend towards charging for access to research findings, tools and databases is becoming more prominent globally. But charging for the use of research tools and databases that are vital to research supporting national and international policy development might be unjustified. Financial barriers to accessing these tools and databases disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, who may have greater need for information that fuels research in their areas of concern. However, changing this trend is potentially possible. One example is the experience with the EuroQol-five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D), a generic measure of health status used in economic evaluations for resource allocation decisions. Increasingly, governments and health-care providers are using the EQ-5D tool in patient-reported outcome measures to monitor quality of health-care provision, diagnose and track disease progression, and involve patients in their health care. The EuroQol Group, which owns the intellectual property rights to the EQ-5D, recently terminated their policy of charging for noncommercial, nonresearch uses of the tool. We share a brief history of this development and examine these charging policies in the context of the EQ-5D's use in national health-care research and policies, reflecting the trends and developments in the use of survey instruments on population health.On observe à l'échelle mondiale une tendance de plus en plus marquée à la tarification de l'accès aux résultats, aux outils et aux bases de données de recherche. Cependant, la tarification de l'utilisation d'outils et de bases de données essentiels aux recherches appuyant l'élaboration de politiques nationales et internationales n'est pas toujours justifiée. Les obstacles financiers qui entravent l'accès à ces outils et bases de données affectent de manière disproportionnée les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire, qui peuvent avoir davantage besoin d'informations pour alimenter des recherches sur leurs sujets de préoccupation. Il est toutefois possible d'infléchir cette tendance. Le questionnaire EuroQol-five-dimensions (EQ-5D), une mesure générale de l'état de santé utilisée dans les évaluations économiques pour les décisions relatives à l'affectation des ressources, constitue un exemple. Les gouvernements et les prestataires de soins de santé utilisent de plus en plus l'outil EQ-5D dans les mesures des résultats notifiés par les patients pour surveiller la qualité de la prestation des soins de santé, diagnostiquer et suivre l'évolution d'une maladie, et associer les patients à leurs soins de santé. Le groupe EuroQol, qui détient les droits de propriété intellectuelle relatifs à l'EQ-5D, a récemment mis fin à sa politique de tarification pour l'utilisation de l'outil à des fins non commerciales et dans un contexte autre que celui de la recherche. Nous retraçons brièvement ce cheminement et examinons ces politiques de tarification dans le contexte de l'utilisation de l'EQ-5D dans les recherches et politiques nationales sur les soins de santé, en rendant compte de l'évolution de l'utilisation du matériel d'enquête sur la santé de la population.La tendencia a cobrar por el acceso a los resultados de las investigaciones, las herramientas y las bases de datos está cobrando cada vez más importancia en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, puede que no esté justificado cobrar por el uso de herramientas de investigación y bases de datos que son vitales para la investigación en apoyo del desarrollo de políticas nacionales e internacionales. Las barreras financieras para acceder a estas herramientas y bases de datos afectan desproporcionadamente a los países de ingresos bajos y medios, que pueden tener una mayor necesidad de información que impulse la investigación en sus áreas de interés. Sin embargo, es posible cambiar esta tendencia. Un ejemplo es la experiencia con el cuestionario de cinco dimensiones EuroQol (EQ-5D), una medida genérica del estado de salud utilizada en las evaluaciones económicas para las decisiones de asignación de recursos. Cada vez más, los gobiernos y los proveedores de la atención de la salud están utilizando la herramienta EQ-5D en las medidas de resultado informadas por el paciente para supervisar la calidad de la prestación de la atención de la salud, diagnosticar y hacer un seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad e involucrar a los pacientes en su cuidado de la salud. El Grupo EuroQol, propietario de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de EQ-5D, puso fin recientemente a su política de cobrar por los usos no comerciales y no relacionados con la investigación de la herramienta. En este artículo se presenta una breve historia de este desarrollo y se examinan estas políticas de cobro en el contexto del uso de EQ-5D en la investigación y las políticas nacionales de atención de la salud, reflejando las tendencias y los avances en el uso de los instrumentos de las encuestas sobre la salud de la población.أصبح الاتجاه نحو فرض رسوم مقابل الاطلاع على نتائج الأبحاث والأدوات وقواعد البيانات، أكثر وضوحاً على مستوى العالم. إلا أن فرض رسوم على استخدام أدوات البحث وقواعد البيانات التي تعد ضرورية للبحث الذي يدعم تطوير السياسات الوطنية والدولية، أمراً غير مبرر. إن العقبات المالية التي تعوق الاطلاع على هذه الأدوات وقواعد البيانات تؤثر بشكل غير متناسب على البلدان ذات الدخل المنخفض والمتوسط، والتي قد تكون بحاجة أكبر إلى المعلومات التي تغذي الأبحاث في مجالات اهتمامها. إلا أن تغيير هذا الاتجاه أمر ممكن ومحتمل. ومثال على ذلك تجربة استبيان EuroQol خماسي الأبعاد (EQ-5D)، وهو مقياس عام للحالة الصحية يتم استخدامه في التقييمات الاقتصادية لقرارات تخصيص الموارد. تستخدم الحكومات وجهات تقديم الرعاية الصحية على نحو متزايد أداة EQ-5D في مقاييس النتائج التي يبلغ عنها المريض، لمراقبة جودة توفير الرعاية الصحية، وتشخيص وتتبع تطور المرض، مع إشراك المرضى في الرعاية الصحية المقدمة لهم. قامت مجموعة EuroQol Group، التي تمتلك حقوق الملكية الفكرية لـ EQ-5D، مؤخراً بإنهاء سياستها الخاصة بفرض رسوم على استخدامات الأداة لأغراض غير تجارية وغير بحثية. نحن نقوم بعرض تاريخ موجز لهذا التطور، ونختبر تلك السياسات الخاصة بفرض الرسوم في سياق استخدام EQ-5D في الأبحاث والسياسات الوطنية للرعاية الصحية، مما يعكس الاتجاهات والتطورات في استخدام أدوات المسح الإحصائي على صحة السكان.在全球范围内，要求付费以获取研究成果、工具和数据库的现象逐渐成为一种重要趋势。但是，使用对支持国家和国际政策发展的研究至关重要的研究工具和数据库时，相关收费并不合理。为访问这些工具和数据库设置的资金障碍对中低收入国家的影响尤为严重，这是因为中低收入国家可能需要更多信息以推动其相关领域的研究发展。但是，或许可以改变这种趋势。以使用 EuroQol 五维问卷（EQ-5D，在资源分配决策相关经济评估方面使用的通用健康状态测量量表）的经验为例。越来越多的政府部门和医疗保健提供者在患者报告结局测量方面使用 EQ-5D 工具，以监控医疗保健质量、诊断和跟踪疾病进展并吸引患者参与其医疗保健项目。拥有 EQ-5D 的知识产权的欧洲生存质量学会最近终止了一项政策，即其针对出于非商业和非研究目的使用该工具的情况实施的收费政策。我们简单分享了其发展史，并基于 EQ-5D 在国家医疗保健研究和政策领域的使用情况，研究了这些收费政策，以反映使用人口健康调查工具的趋势和发展。.Тенденция к начислению платы за доступ к результатам, инструментам и базам данных исследований приобретает ярко выраженный характер по всему миру. Но взимание платы за использование инструментов и баз данных исследований, совершенно необходимых для поддержки развития национальных и международных политик, может быть необоснованным. Финансовые барьеры к использованию этих инструментов и баз данных могут непропорционально сильно сказаться на странах со средним и низким уровнем дохода, которые могут испытывать большую потребность в информации, поддерживающей проведение исследований в проблемных для данных стран областях. Однако существует потенциальная возможность изменить такую тенденцию. В качестве одного из примеров можно привести опросник из пяти вопросов EuroQol (EQ-5D) — общий показатель состояния здоровья, используемый при экономической оценке для принятия решений о распределении ресурсов. Правительства стран и медицинские учреждения все чаще используют инструмент EQ-5D для измерения результатов, сообщаемых пациентами, с целью контроля качества оказания медицинской помощи, диагностики и отслеживания течения заболевания, а также вовлечения пациентов в процесс медицинского обслуживания. Компания EuroQol Group, которая владеет правами интеллектуальной собственности на EQ-5D, недавно отказалась от политики начисления платы за некоммерческое использование инструмента, не связанное с проведением исследований. Авторы вкратце рассказывают о развитии данной ситуации и рассматривают политики относительно начисления платы в контексте использования EQ-5D в национальных исследованиях и разработке политик в области здравоохранения, отражающих тенденции и изменения в использовании средств исследования здоровья населения.

The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global norms about opportunity costs and too little respect has been shown for the wider set of local circumstances that may enable, or disable, the productive application of the DCP evidence base. We suggest that the best way forward for the global health community is a new platform that integrates the many existing development initiatives and that is driven by countries’ asks.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to end until there is global roll-out of vaccines that protect against severe disease and preferably drive herd immunity. Regulators in numerous countries have authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccines for human use, with more expected to be licensed in 2021. Yet having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities. In this Health Policy paper, we review potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discuss policy implications. To guide our review, we developed a dashboard to highlight key characteristics of 26 leading vaccine candidates, including efficacy levels, dosing regimens, storage requirements, prices, production capacities in 2021, and stocks reserved for low-income and middle-income countries. We use a traffic-light system to signal the potential contributions of each candidate to achieving global vaccine immunity, highlighting important trade-offs that policy makers need to consider when developing and implementing vaccination programmes. Although specific datapoints are subject to change as the pandemic response progresses, the dashboard will continue to provide a useful lens through which to analyse the key issues affecting the use of COVID-19 vaccines. We also present original data from a 32-country survey (n=26 758) on potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, conducted from October to December, 2020. Vaccine acceptance was highest in Vietnam (98%), India (91%), China (91%), Denmark (87%), and South Korea (87%), and lowest in Serbia (38%), Croatia (41%), France (44%), Lebanon (44%), and Paraguay (51%).

Thailand is facing the dilemma of which groups to prioritise for the limited first tranche of vaccinations in 2021. A mathematical modelling analysis was performed to compare the potential short-term impact of allocating the available doses to either the high-risk group (over 65-year-olds) or the high incidence group (aged 20-39). Vaccinating the high incidence group with a vaccine with sufficiently high protection against infection (more than 50%) could provide enough herd effects to delay the expected epidemic peak, resulting in fewer deaths within the 12-month time horizon compared to vaccinating the same number of the high-risk group. After 12 months, if no further vaccination or other interventions were deployed, this strategy would lead to more deaths. With the right vaccine efficacy profile, targeting the high incidence groups could be a viable short-term component of the Thai vaccination strategy. These results and emerging evidence on vaccines and susceptibility suggest prioritisation guidelines should be more nuanced.

Background Progress towards achieving Universal Health Coverage and institutionalizing healthcare priority setting through health technology assessment (HTA) in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region varies considerably across countries because of differences in healthcare expenditure, political support, access to health information and technology infrastructure. To explore the status and capacity of HTA in the region, the ASEAN Secretariat requested for member countries to be surveyed to identify existing gaps and to propose solutions to help countries develop and streamline their priority-setting processes for improved healthcare decision-making. Methods A mixed survey questionnaire with open- and closed-ended questions relating to HTA governance, HTA infrastructure, supply and demand of HTA and global HTA networking opportunities in each country was administered electronically to representatives of HTA nodal agencies of all ASEAN members. In-person meetings or email correspondence were used to clarify or validate any unclear responses. Results were collated and presented quantitatively. Results Responses from eight out of ten member countries were analysed. The results illustrate that countries in the ASEAN region are at different stages of HTA institutionalization. While Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have well-established processes and methods for priority setting through HTA, other countries, such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, the Philippines and Vietnam, have begun to develop HTA systems in their countries by establishing nodal agencies or conducting ad-hoc activities. Discussion and conclusion The study provides a general overview of the HTA landscape in ASEAN countries. Systematic efforts to mitigate the gaps between the demand and supply of HTA in each country are required while ensuring adequate participation from stakeholders so that decisions for resource allocation are made in a fair, legitimate and transparent manner and are relevant to each local context.

ObjectiveDespite treatment availability, chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) public health burden is rising in India due to lack of timely diagnosis. Therefore, we aim to assess incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for one-time universal screening followed by treatment of people infected with HCV as compared with a no screening policy in Punjab, India.Study designDecision tree integrated with Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression. A societal perspective and a 3% annual discount rate were considered to assess incremental cost per QALY gained. In addition, budgetary impact was also assessed with a payer’s perspective and time horizon of 5 years.Study settingScreening services were assumed to be delivered as a facility-based intervention where active screening for HCV cases would be performed at 22 district hospitals in the state of Punjab, which will act as integrated testing as well as treatment sites for HCV.InterventionTwo intervention scenarios were compared with no universal screening and treatment (routine care). Scenario I—screening with ELISA followed by confirmatory HCV-RNA quantification and treatment. Scenario II—screening with rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kit followed by confirmatory HCV-RNA quantification and treatment.Primary and secondary outcome measuresLifetime costs; life years and QALY gained; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each of the above-mentioned intervention scenario as compared with the routine care.ResultsScreening with ELISA and RDT, respectively, results in a gain of 0.028 (0.008 to 0.06) and 0.027 (0.008 to 0.061) QALY per person with costs decreased by −1810 Indian rupees (−3376 to –867) and −1812 Indian rupees (−3468 to −850) when compared with no screening. One-time universal screening of all those ≥18 years at a base coverage of 30%, with ELISA and RDT, would cost 8.5 and 8.3 times more, respectively, when compared with screening the age group of the cohort 40–45 years old.ConclusionOne-time universal screening followed by HCV treatment is a dominant strategy as compared with no screening. However, budget impact of screening of all ≥18-year-old people seems unsustainable. Thus, in view of findings from both cost-effectiveness and budget impact, we recommend beginning with screening the age cohort with RDT around mean age of disease presentation, that is, 40–45 years, instead of all ≥18-year-old people.

Background: Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Findings: Our search identified 3,214 studies, of which 26 were eligible for analysis. All studies were conducted in 7 high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (81% mRNA only, 15% mRNA and viral vector). Twenty-one of the 26 studies (81%) used a cohort study design. There was significant heterogeneity for full vaccination effectiveness estimates across studies (infection: n=17, mean=79%; hospitalisation: n=7, mean=89%; death: n=3, mean=92%). Follow-up time for all studies was short (mean=9.5 weeks). Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. Interpretation: This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings. Funding: Health Systems Research Institute.

Traditional and complementary medicines are increasingly considered possible options for prevention and symptomatic treatment of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. With renewed attention on these therapies from researchers and policy makers alike, the well-documented challenges of evaluating their safety and efficacy are once again of global concern. Between 2005 and 2018, the World Health Organization conducted a series of surveys, in which 88 percent of responding member states confirmed that their biggest challenge in traditional medicine was the need for technical guidance on research and evaluation. As a first step in pursuing this need, our commentary summarizes thirteen international and regional guidance documents by three broad categories on evaluating safety, efficacy, and product quality for market-based approval and distribution of these treatments. We highlight the paucity of updated international recommendations on these subjects and identify gaps that could inform the current evidence base. All available guidance note the need for evidence surrounding the efficacy of these treatments and practices but are also quick to caution against methodological difficulties in the conduct of such evaluations. Evidence suggests that improved evaluation methods on efficacy and effectiveness are crucial toward expanding future research into establishing the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, in the context of shifting acceptance, interest, and integration of traditional medicines into health systems, and as another step toward Universal Health Coverage.

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician–patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.

There is growing interest globally in using real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) for health technology assessment (HTA). Optimal collection, analysis, and use of RWD/RWE to inform HTA requires a conceptual framework to standardize processes and ensure consistency. However, such framework is currently lacking in Asia, a region that is likely to benefit from RWD/RWE for at least two reasons. First, there is often limited Asian representation in clinical trials unless specifically conducted in Asian populations, and RWD may help to fill the evidence gap. Second, in a few Asian health systems, reimbursement decisions are not made at market entry; thus, allowing RWD/RWE to be collected to give more certainty about the effectiveness of technologies in the local setting and inform their appropriate use. Furthermore, an alignment of RWD/RWE policies across Asia would equip decision makers with context-relevant evidence, and improve timely patient access to new technologies. Using data collected from eleven health systems in Asia, this paper provides a review of the current landscape of RWD/RWE in Asia to inform HTA and explores a way forward to align policies within the region. This paper concludes with a proposal to establish an international collaboration among academics and HTA agencies in the region: the REAL World Data In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) working group, which seeks to develop a non-binding guidance document on the use of RWD/RWE to inform HTA for decision making in Asia.

Background High levels of sedentary behaviour (SB) are associated with non-communicable diseases. In 2016, the estimated total healthcare expenditure from physical activity (PA) in Thailand added up to $190 million in international dollars. The challenge to reduce SB and increase PA among office workers is more urgent now than ever as Thailand is transforming itself from a predominantly rural country to an increasingly urban one. This study will investigate the effectiveness of a multicomponent short break intervention on the reduction of SB during office hours. Methods/design This two-armed Physical Activity at Work (PAW) cluster randomised controlled trial will recruit 360 office workers from 18 offices in the Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health (MOPH). Offices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. The multicomponent intervention is informed by the Social Ecological Model and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) and contains four components: (i) organisational, including heads of the participating divisions leading exercises, sending encouragement text messages and acknowledging efforts; (ii) social, including team movement breaks and team-based incentives; (iii) environmental, including posters to encourage exercise; and (iv) individual components including real-time PA feedback via an individual device. The main intervention component will be a short break intervention. The primary outcome of this study is the sedentary time of office workers. Secondary outcomes include time spent on PA, cardiometabolic outcomes, work productivity, musculoskeletal pain, and quality of life. The study also includes process and economic evaluations from the individual and societal perspective. Discussion The study will be the first experimental study in Thailand to investigate the effect of a short-break intervention at the workplace on SBs of office workers and health outcomes. The study will also include a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform investments on short break interventions under the Universal Healthcare Coverage in Thailand, which includes health promotion and disease prevention component. Trial registration The PAW study has been registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) under the study ID TCTR20200604007. Registered 02 June 2020

BackgroundDespite a growing global commitment to universal health coverage, considerable vaccine coverage and uptake gaps persist in resource-constrained settings. One way of addressing the gaps is by ensuring product innovation is relevant and responsive to the needs of these contexts. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) framework has been developed to characterize preferred vaccine attributes from the perspective of country decision-makers to inform research and development (R&D) of products. A proof of concept pilot study took place in Thailand in 2018 to examine the feasibility and usefulness of the TSE approach using a rotavirus hypothetical test-case.MethodsThe excel-based model used multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare and evaluate five hypothetical rotavirus vaccine products. The model was populated with local data and products were ranked against decision criteria identified by Thai stakeholders. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify criteria that influenced vaccine ranking. Self-assessment forms were distributed to R&D stakeholders on the usability of the approach and were subsequently analysed.ResultsThe model identified significant parameters that impacted on MCDA rankings. Self-assessment forms revealed that TSE was perceived as being able to encourage closer collaboration between country decision makers and vaccine developers.ConclusionsThe pilot study demonstrates that it is feasible to use an MCDA approach to elicit stakeholder preferences and determine influential parameters to help identify the preferred product characteristics for R&D from the perspective of country decision-makers. It found that TSE can help steer manufacturers to develop products that are better aligned with country need. Findings will guide further development of the TSE concept.

There has been continuous development in the field of health technology assessment (HTA) owing to the added value of HTA in supporting healthcare reimbursement decisions. Collaboration and engagement among countries in Asia has been carried out to share experiences and learning on the barriers and factors facilitating the implementation and use of HTA in policy making. A symposium on the topic of Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Selecting the Highest Value Care was held on January 10, 2019 at the National University of Singapore, during which 3 major challenges confronting HTA development in Asia were identified. The symposium also offered possible ways to overcome the challenges., Highlights • Countries in Asia increasingly recognize and adopt health technology assessment (HTA) in setting priorities for healthcare. Nevertheless, 2 common challenges can be identified, namely, lack of infrastructure and technical capacity to cope with the increasing demand for HTA, and the inadequate involvement of stakeholders in the HTA process. • Solutions identified at the HTA symposium in Singapore to overcome these challenges were that countries should implement a tailored and transparent mechanism for using HTA, promote existing HTA capacity, and strengthen the understanding of HTA among the stakeholders. • Health technology assessment symposia such as the one organized in Singapore provide a platform for countries to share knowledge and challenges, and bring different views to build into something greater and overcome the challenges. Such symposia should be organized regularly.

Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai and colleagues highlight the importance of local context in making decisions about implementing interventions for preventing non-communicable diseases

Highlights • Early health technology assessment is useful, but not widely applied. • Practical steps were provided for conducting early health technology assessment. • Four concepts of target product profiles were proposed. • Aim to translate early health technology assessment into a practical tool., Early health technology assessment (early HTA) is a useful tool in guiding the innovation development process in medical technology development. However, the application of early HTA is sub-optimal amongst research and development (R&D) communities due to several challenges. In this paper, we presented a case study of application of early HTA by drawing on the experience from a workshop conducted for the Singapore government's medical technology innovation agency. The framework developed can help maximise the chance of the newly developed technology being accepted and widely used. By providing step-by-step guidance, this work aims to translate early HTA into a practical tool and promote the application of early HTA amongst R&D communities.

ObjectivesThe study aims to identify high-cost users (HCUs) in the inpatient departments of hospitals in Thailand including their common characteristics, patterns of healthcare utilisation and expenditure compared with low-cost users, and to explore potential factors associated with HCUs so the healthcare system can be prepared to support the HCUs including those who have increased chances of becoming HCUs.Design and settingA retrospective secondary data analysis using hospitalisation data from Thailand’s Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) obtained from the National Health Security Office over a 5-year period from October 2014 to September 2019 (fiscal year 2014–2018).ParticipantsStudy participants included Thai citizens who had at least one inpatient admission to hospitals under the UCS over the study period.ResultsOver the 5-year period, the top 5% of the hospitalised population (or HCUs) consumed almost 50% of the health expenditure each year. HCUs were more likely to have longer hospital stays, a higher annual number of visits and be admitted to multiple hospitals each year when compared with the low-cost users (the bottom 50% of the hospitalised population). The study further reported that the chance of becoming an HCU is associated with several factors such as increasing age, being male, having a comorbidity and being admitted to hospitals in Bangkok.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that the HCU phenomenon existed in Thailand, where a majority of inpatient care spending is concentrated in the top 5% of the hospitalised population. The study findings call attention to potential initiatives that can help monitor the magnitude and trend of HCUs and develop policies to prevent HCUs.

Summary Background/Objective To determine the quality of life (QoL) in Thais after intervention for great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. Methods Patients with Clinical Etiologic Anatomic Pathophysiologic classes 2 and 3 were enrolled in this study. QoL was measured using the EuroQol descriptive system (EQ-5D) questionnaire, and patients chose to receive either endovenous treatment or surgery after consulting with their surgeons. The QoL before the intervention, at 1 week, and at 1 month after the intervention were evaluated. Patients who reported "no problem" in each domain of the EQ-5D questionnaire before and 1 month after the intervention were compared. Utility gain was estimated from the questionnaire and compared between clinical classes. The proportion of worsening QoL at 1 week after the intervention was compared between patients receiving endovenous procedures and surgery. Results A total of 83 patients—56 received endovenous procedures [23 received ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and 33 received radiofrequency ablation (RFA)] and 27 received surgery—were enrolled. QoLs were significantly better in all domains after the intervention: pain/discomfort (58%), mobility (42%), anxiety/depression (38%), usual activities (19%), and self-care (9%). Utility gain was 0.255 (95% confidence interval: 0.197–0.313) and higher in class 3. At 1 week after the intervention, surgery had significantly higher patients with worse mobility scores. Among endovenous procedures, UGFS had higher patients with worse pain/discomfort scores than RFA at 1 week after the intervention (16% vs. 0%, p = 0.025). Conclusion GSV ablation for GSV reflux in Thai patients with CEAP C2 and C3 categories significantly improves both physical and mental QoL; patients who received endovenous procedures were found to have better early physical QoL.

Основные лекарства удовлетворяют приоритетные потребности населения в области здравоохранения. Политика, основанная на концепции основных лекарств, имеет решающее значение в улучшении здоровья и достижении устойчивого развития. Цель устойчивого развития 3.8 конкретно упоминает важность «доступности безопасных, эффективных, качественных и доступных по цене основных лекарств и вакцин для всех» в качестве центрального компонента всеобщего охвата медицинской помощью (ВОМП), а цель устойчивого развития 3.b подчёркивает необходимость разработки лекарств для устранения постоянно возникающих пробелов в отношении лечения. Признание важности основных лекарств - не новость. В 1985 г. на конференции в Найроби по рациональному использованию лекарств представители правительств и другие заинтересованные стороны предложили всеобъемлющий комплекс мер по разработке политики в области основных лекарств. Через 30 лет была созвана «Комиссия журнала Ланцет (Lancet) по основным лекарствам» (далее Комиссия) для изучения следующих вопросов: Какого прогресса удалось достичь? Какие проблемы ещё остаются для решения? Какие уроки были извлечены для информирования будущих подходов? И как можно использовать политику в области основных лекарств для продвижения ВОМП и внесения вклада в повестку глобального устойчивого развития? В настоящем докладе рассмотрены эти вопросы с намерением репозиционировать политику в области основных лекарств в повестке глобального развития. Комиссия определила пять областей, имеющих решающее значение для политики в области основных лекарств: оплата корзины основных лекарств, обеспечение ценовой доступности основных лекарств, гарантия их качества и безопасности, мероприятия, способствующие их качественному использованию, и разработка недостающих (отсутствующих) основных лекарств. Комиссия позиционировала политику в области основных лекарств в контексте текущих глобальных дебатов о балансировании политики в области торговли и интеллектуальной собственности с правами человека, об обеспечении безопасности здравоохранения, укреплении систем здравоохранения, ориентированных на людей, и улучшении доступности основных технологий. Во всех областях политики особое внимание было уделено совершенствованию принципов равенства и справедливости в доступе, укреплению соответствующих институтов и созданию подотчётности. В каждой из определённых областей Комиссия сформулировала рекомендации к действию, подтвердив тем самым позицию политики в области основных лекарств в качестве центрального компонента глобального здоровья и здравоохранения и повестки развития.

Public policy for kidney replacement therapy eludes most low- and middle-income countries owing to the seemingly low number of cases and high cost. Countries such as Thailand have shown that public health authorities can effectively provide treatment and elevate health care for populations by overcoming some common challenges.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers in high-, low-, and middle-income countries alike face challenging choices about resource allocation in health. Economic evaluation can be useful in providing decision makers with the best evidence of the anticipated benefits of new investments, as well as their expected opportunity costs-the benefits forgone of the options not chosen. To guide the decisions of health systems effectively, it is important that the methods of economic evaluation are founded on clear principles, are applied systematically, and are appropriate to the decision problems they seek to inform. METHODS: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of economic evaluations of health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), commissioned a "reference case" through the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) to guide future evaluations, and improve both the consistency and usefulness to decision makers. RESULTS: The iDSI Reference Case draws on previous insights from the World Health Organization, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Comprising 11 key principles, each accompanied by methodological specifications and reporting standards, the iDSI Reference Case also serves as a means of identifying priorities for methods research, and can be used as a framework for capacity building and technical assistance in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: The iDSI Reference Case is an aid to thought, not a substitute for it, and should not be followed slavishly without regard to context, culture, or history. This article presents the iDSI Reference Case and discusses the rationale, approach, components, and application in LMICs.

This paper explores the characteristics of health technology assessment (HTA) systems and practices in Asia. Representatives from nine countries were surveyed to understand each step of the HTA pathway. The analysis finds that although there are similarities in the processes of HTA and its application to inform decision making, there is variation in the number of topics assessed and the stakeholders involved in each step of the process. There is limited availability of resources and technical capacity and countries adopt different means to overcome these challenges by accepting industry submissions or adapting findings from other regions. Inclusion of stakeholders in the process of selecting topics, generating evidence, and making funding recommendations is critical to ensure relevance of HTA to country priorities. Lessons from this analysis may be instructive to other countries implementing HTA processes and inform future research on the feasibility of implementing a harmonized HTA system in the region.

Background This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of adopting sildenafil to the benefits package for the indication of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), compared to beraprost. Methods Based on a societal perspective, a model-based economic evaluation was performed using local and international data to quantify the potential costs and health-related outcomes in terms of life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results The economic model calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained for using sildenafil as first-line therapy compared to beraprost for the patient in functional class (FC) II and III, i.e. USD 3098 and USD 2827, respectively. The results indicated that in spite of sildenafil being more expensive than beraprost, generic sildenafil could potentially be a good value for money since ICER per QALY is below one times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Indonesia. Furthermore, budget impact analysis estimated that the incremental budget needed within 5 years for including sildenafil compared to beraprost for PAH patients starting in FC II and FC III was USD 436,775 and USD 3.6 million, respectively. Conclusions Compared to beraprost, sildenafil would be preferable for the treatment of PAH patients in FC II and FC III in Indonesia. The additional budget for adopting sildenafil compared to beraprost as the treatment of PAH in the benefits package was estimated at around USD 4.0 million. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4422-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to identify criteria being used for priority setting for resource allocation decisions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, the included studies were analyzed from a policy perspective to understand priority setting processes in these countries.MethodsSearches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, supplemented with pre-identified Web sites and bibliographic searches of relevant papers. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken. The review protocol is registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO CRD42017068371.ResultsOf 16,412 records screened by title and abstract, 112 papers were identified for full text screening and 44 studies were included in the final analysis. At an overall level, cost-effectiveness 52 percent (n = 22) and health benefits 45 percent (n = 19) were the most cited criteria used for priority setting for public health resource allocation. Inter-region (LMICs) and between various approaches (like health technology assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), accountability for reasonableness (AFR) variations among criteria were also noted. Our review found that MCDA approach was more frequently used in upper middle-income countries and AFR in lower-income countries for priority setting in health. Policy makers were the most frequently consulted stakeholders in all regions.Conclusions and RecommendationsPriority-setting criteria for health resource allocation decisions in LMICs largely comprised of cost-effectiveness and health benefits criteria at overall level. Other criteria like legal and regulatory framework conducive for implementation, fairness/ethics, and political considerations were infrequently reported and should be considered.

India’s rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system . In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locally-tailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India., Highlights • UHC requires explicit trade-offs to maximize health using limited available resources • Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is the gold-standard for informing such trade-offs • There is a dearth of skills required to conduct and utilize HTA evidence in India • We describe the first National capacity-building program for HTA in India • The approach described presents a strong model for adaptation in similar contexts

© 2019 The Author(s). Background: Many patients develop tumour recurrence within a few years after undergoing surgical resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Adjuvant imatinib treatment is recommended for patients with high risk of GIST recurrence as it can improve recurrence-free survival and overall survival of patients. This study aims to assess the cost-utility of adjuvant imatinib in patients with high risk of GIST recurrence after surgery compared with no adjuvant therapy in Thailand. Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes of using adjuvant imatinib treatment and other treatment alternatives if recurrence occurred compared with the current situation of no adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients after surgery. A 1-month cycle length was deployed in the model. Transition probabilities were derived from literature review. Costs were collected and calculated for the year 2014 from a societal perspective. Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess parameter uncertainties. Results: Three years of adjuvant imatinib treatment followed by imatinib treatment and best supportive care if recurrence occurred after or during adjuvant therapy, respectively, was the best option as it produced more health outcomes (1.23 life years (LYs) and 1.16 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) compared to no adjuvant therapy while yielding the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1,648,801 Thai Baht (THB) per QALY gained. Three years of adjuvant imatinib treatment followed by sunitinib treatment if recurrence occurred had an ICER of 2,608,264 THB per QALY gained compared to the best option, while other options were dominated. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of patients receiving adjuvant imatinib had the greatest effect on the model, followed by the discount rate and probability of GIST recurrence. Conclusions: Adjuvant imatinib treatment improved the health benefits of patients with high risk of GIST recurrence. However, in the Thai context, it was not cost-effective at the current price.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help countries attain and sustain universal health coverage (UHC), as long as it is context-specific and considered within deliberative processes at the country level. Institutionalising robust deliberative processes requires significant time and resources, however, and countries often begin by demanding evidence (including local CEA evidence as well as evidence about local values), whilst striving to strengthen the governance structures and technical capacities with which to generate, consider and act on such evidence. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such capacities could be developed initially around a small technical unit in the health ministry or health insurer. The role of networks, development partners, and global norm setting organisations is crucial in supporting the necessary capacities.

The objective of this study was to identify the differences in pattern, process, and management of nutrition care in government hospitals in Thailand (an Asian upper-middle income developing country).This is a combination of a quantitative nationwide questionnaire survey and focus group discussions. A total of 2300 questionnaires were sent to government hospitals across Thailand. The responders were divided by routine-nutrition screening/assessment unit vs. non-routine-nutrition screening/assessment unit (RSA vs. NRSA). The comparison between the groups was reported as percentage and cross-sectional odds ratio (CS-OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The significant difference was defined as p 0.05.A total of 814 questionnaires (35.4%) were returned. The three most common tools of RSA were 42% Bhumibol Nutrition Triage (BNT), 21.2% Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and 20.2% Nutrition Alert Form (NAF). The RSA was significantly higher in proportion for the role of the nurses (RSA vs. NRSA; CS-OR [95% CI]: 68.3% vs. 11.9%; 15.8 [11.1 to 22.7]; p 0.01), the multidisciplinary team (90.1% vs. 0.4%; 2266 [558 to 1909]; p 0.01), the nutrition management guidelines (60.6% vs. 2.8%; 53.6 [29.6 to 102.8]; p 0.01), the nurse-driven enteral feeding protocols (31.7% vs. 17.5%; 2.2 [1.5 to 3.1]; p 0.01) and preference for hospital formula enteral nutrition (91.4% vs.69.7%; 4.6 [2.9 to 7.4]; p 0.01). For focus group discussions, the main barrier of RSA implementation was that there was no national recommendation of a screening/assessment tool, inconsistency of policy and reimbursement, and professional and acceptable workload.Nutrition screening/assessment tools were found to be varied in Thailand. RSA affected the nutrition management working process and the types of nutrition support. The main barriers of RSA implementation were inconsistency of policy and reimbursement, acceptable workload, and national guidance as regards - screening/assessment tools.

Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation's resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost-effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities - implicitly or explicitly - it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC.Les gouvernements des pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire sont en train de légitimer la mise en place de la couverture sanitaire universelle (CSU), suite à une résolution des Nations Unies de 2012 sur la CSU et à son entérinement dans les objectifs de développement durable fixés en 2015. La CSU variera selon les pays, en fonction de leur contexte et de leurs besoins, ainsi qu'en fonction de la demande et de l'offre de soins. Des questions fondamentales ont ainsi été soulevées par les responsables politiques et les parties prenantes, portant notamment sur les objectifs, les utilisateurs et le rapport coût-efficacité de la CSU. Si les autorités sanitaires déterminent quotidiennement des priorités, de façon implicite ou explicite, la marche à suivre pour définir les priorités en matière de CSU n'a pas été clairement établie. Nous justifions ici la nécessité de définir explicitement les priorités dans le domaine de la santé tout en donnant des orientations aux pays pour définir les priorités en matière de CSU.Los gobiernos de países con ingresos bajos y medios están legitimando la implementación de una cobertura sanitaria universal (CSU) tras un acuerdo de las Naciones Unidas acerca de la cobertura sanitaria universal en 2012 y su consolidación en los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible establecidos en 2015. Cada país tendrá una cobertura sanitaria universal distinta, según el contexto y las necesidades de cada uno, así como la oferta y la demanda de atención sanitaria. Por tanto, los responsables políticos y partes interesadas han abordado los asuntos fundamentales como los objetivos, los usuarios y la rentabilidad de la cobertura sanitaria universal. A pesar de que las autoridades sanitarias han establecido prioridades diarias (de forma implícita o explícita), no se ha aclarado cómo se debería gestionar el establecimiento de prioridades para la cobertura sanitaria universal. Se ofrece una justificación para el establecimiento de prioridades sanitarias explícitas y orientación a los países en la definición de prioridades para la cobertura sanitaria universal.تتولى الحكومات في الدول الأعلى دخلاً ومتوسطة الدخل سنّ تشريعات لتنفيذ التغطية الصحية الشاملة (UHC)، التزامًا منها بقرار الأمم المتحدة بشأن التغطية الصحية الشاملة الصادر في عام 2012 واستجابةً للتحفيز عليها الوارد في أهداف التنمية المستدامة التي تم وضعها في عام 2015. وستختلف التغطية الصحية الشاملة في كل دولة طبقًا لظروفها واحتياجاتها، وطبقًا لظروف العرض والطلب في مجال الرعاية الصحية. وبناءً على ذلك، طرح مقررو السياسات والجهات المعنية بعض القضايا الأساسية مثل أهداف التغطية الصحية الشاملة، والمستفيدون منها، وفاعليتها من حيث التكلفة. وبرغم التزام الجهات المسؤولة عن الناحية الصحية بتحديد الأولويات على أساس يومي، لم تتضح – سواء ضمنيًا أو صراحةً – الكيفية التي يجب من خلالها تنفيذ إجراءات تحديد الأولويات فيما يتعلق بالتغطية الصحية الشاملة. ونحن نقدم للدول المبررات اللازمة لتحديد الأولويات الصحية صراحةً، كما نقدم لها إرشادات بشأن كيفية تحديد الأولويات فيما يتعلق بالتغطية الصحية الشاملة.依据联合国 2012 年就全民医疗保险 (UHC) 提出的议案以及实施 2015 年设立的可持续发展目标，中低收入国家政府批准实施全民医疗保险 (UHC)。由于各国国情和需求，以及医疗保健的供求不同，因此 UHC 也将有所区别。因此，决策者和利益相关者提出 UHC 的目标、用户和成本效益等基本问题。尽管卫生局每日间接或直接设立优先事项，但如何确立 UHC 的优先事项仍不清楚。我们就如何确立 UHC 的优先事项，向各国政府提供明显的医疗优先事项事实和指南。.Правительства стран с низким и средним уровнями доходов узаконивают реализацию всеобщего охвата медико-санитарной помощью в соответствии с резолюцией ООН по этому вопросу, принятой в 2012 году, и с целями устойчивого развития, определенными в 2015 году, в которых она была закреплена. Прогресс в достижении всеобщего охвата медико-санитарной помощью различается в зависимости от особенностей и потребностей страны, а также от спроса и предложения в секторе здравоохранения. Поэтому лица, определяющие политику, и заинтересованные лица задаются основополагающими вопросами о целях, потребителях и экономической эффективности всеобщего охвата медико-санитарной помощью. Хотя расстановка приоритетов в явной или неявной форме осуществляется органами здравоохранения ежедневно, до сих пор не было ясно, каким образом следует определять приоритеты для достижения всеобщего охвата медико-санитарной помощью. В данной статье обосновывается целесообразность открытого определения приоритетов в области здравоохранения и приводится руководство для стран по расстановке приоритетов для достижения всеобщего охвата медико-санитарной помощью.

Keywords: economic evaluation; cost-effectiveness; priority setting; low-income countries; middle-income countries

This study reports the systematic development of a population-based health screening package for all Thai people under the universal health coverage (UHC). To determine major disease areas and health problems for which health screening could mitigate health burden, a consultation process was conducted in a systematic, participatory, and evidence-based manner that involved 41 stakeholders in a half-day workshop. Twelve diseases/health problems were identified during the discussion. Subsequently, health technology assessments, including systematic review and meta-analysis of health benefits as well as economic evaluations and budget impact analyses of corresponding population-based screening interventions, were completed. The results led to advice against elements of current clinical practice, such as annual chest X-rays and particular blood tests (e.g. kidney function test), and indicated that the introduction of certain new population-based health screening programs, such as for chronic hepatitis B, would provide substantial health and economic benefits to the Thais. The final results were presented to a wide group of stakeholders, including decision-makers at the Ministry of Public Health and the public health insurance schemes, to verify and validate the findings and policy recommendations. The package has been endorsed by the Thai UHC Benefit Package Committee for implementation in fiscal year 2016.

—The economic and health burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is significant globally. To counteract this problem, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Package of Essential Noncommunicable disease (PEN) interventions. Several countries, including Indonesia, implemented the PEN program. To assess the value of the investment in the current program, an economic evaluation of the program was conducted with collaboration between the Ministry of Health in Indonesia, the WHO, and the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI). Even in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Indonesia where there is lack of data and health technology assessment (HTA) expertise, the study aims not only to inform policy but to build HTA capacity in the country through the working partnership between international HTA experts and local partners.This study evaluated the delivery of screening and treatment for diabetes and hypertension, which are part of NCD interventions in the PEN program. S...

This study aims to compare the lifetime costs and health outcomes of both first-line and sequential combination treatments with standard treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) associated with congenital heart disease (CHD) (PAH-CHD) patients.A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model based on a societal perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the effect of parameter uncertainty.As first-line treatments, both beraprost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = 192,752 and 201,308 Thai baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and sildenafil (ICER = 249,770 and 226,802 THB per QALY gained) seemed cost-effective for PAH-CHD patients aged ≤30 years in functional classes II and III, respectively, while no treatment was cost-effective for the sequential combination therapy.Sildenafil should be included in the National Drug List of Essential Medicines as the first-line treatment for PAH-CHD, and its price per dose should be negotiated to be reduced by 43-57%.

Aim This systematic review aimed to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests for early detection of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in previously undiagnosed adults. Methods This systematic review included published studies that included one or more index tests (random and fasting tests, HbA1c) for glucose detection, with 75-gram Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (or 2-hour post load glucose) as a reference standard (PROSPERO ID CRD42018102477). Seven databases were searched electronically (from their inception up to March 9, 2020) accompanied with bibliographic and website searches. Records were manually screened and full text were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, data extraction was done using standardized form and quality assessment of studies using QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was done using bivariate model using Stata 14.0. Optimal cut offs in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the tests were analysed using R software. Results Of 7,151 records assessed by title and abstract, a total of 37 peer reviewed articles were included in this systematic review. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for diagnosing diabetes with HbA1c (6.5%; venous sample; n = 17 studies) were 50% (95% CI: 42–59%), 97.3% (95% CI: 95.3–98.4), 18.32 (95% CI: 11.06–30.53) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43–0.60), respectively. However, the optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed adults with HbA1c was estimated as 6.03% with pooled sensitivity of 73.9% (95% CI: 68–79.1%) and specificity of 87.2% (95% CI: 82–91%). The optimal cut-off for Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) was estimated as 104 milligram/dL (mg/dL) with a sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 74.6–88.1%) and specificity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.2–92.5%). Conclusion Our findings suggest that at present recommended threshold of 6.5%, HbA1c is more specific and less sensitive in diagnosing the newly detected diabetes in undiagnosed population from community settings. Lowering of thresholds for HbA1c and FPG to 6.03% and 104 mg/dL for early detection in previously undiagnosed persons for screening purposes may be considered.

The legacy of male bias within pharmaceutical research, regulation, and commercialisation needs to be rectified, argue Sundari Ravindran and colleagues

Expensive treatments such as renal dialysis are a challenge for countries aiming for universal coverage. Yot Teerawattananon and colleagues set out a systematic approach to ensuring it is affordable

Planning and administering Universal Health Coverage (UHC) policies involve complex and critical decisions, especially in resource-scarce and densely populated settings such as Indonesia. Increasing investments alone do not ensure success and sustainability of UHC, and defining priorities is imperative. In 2013, Indonesia formally embarked on its journey of institutionalizing priority setting with technical assistance from the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), which is a global network of organizations in pursuit of evidence-based priority setting. This article provides a perspective for countries in pursuit of institutionalization of evidence-informed policy setting systems and sheds light on the factors conducive to the development of health technology assessment (HTA). It explores the main actors and the context of priority setting in Indonesia and articulates strategies and key outcomes and impact using the theory of change (ToC).

Background The lack of seasonality in influenza epidemics in the tropics makes the application of well-established temperate zone national vaccination plans challenging. Objectives We developed an individual-based simulation model to study optimal vaccination scheduling and assess cost-effectiveness of these vaccination schedules in scenarios of no influenza seasonality and the seasonality regimes of Singapore, Taipei, and Tokyo. Methods The simulation models heterogeneities in human contact networks, levels of protective antibodies following infection, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine, and seasonality. Using a no intervention baseline, we consider 3 alternative vaccination strategies: (1) annual vaccination for a percentage of the elderly, (2) biannual vaccination for a percentage of the elderly, and (3) annual vaccination for all elderly and a fraction of the remaining population. We considered 5 vaccination uptake rates for each strategy and modeled the estimated costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), indicating the cost-effectiveness of each scenario. Results In Singapore, annual vaccination for a proportion of elderly is largely cost-effective. However, with fixed uptake rates, partial biannual vaccination for the elderly yields a higher ICER than partial annual vaccination for the elderly, resulting in a cost-ineffective ICER. The most optimal strategy is the total vaccination of all the elderly and a proportion of individuals from other age groups, which results in a cost-saving ICER. This finding is consistent across different seasonality regimes. Conclusions Tropical countries like Singapore can have comparably cost-effective vaccination strategies as found in countries with winter epidemics. The vaccination of all the elderly and a proportion of other age groups is the most cost-effective strategy, supporting the need for an extensive national influenza vaccination program.