Search

Abstract Background The phenomenon of high-cost users (HCUs) in health care occurs when a small proportion of patients account for a large proportion of health care expenditures. By understanding this phenomenon during the COVID-19 pandemic, tailored interventions can be provided to ensure that patients receive the care they need and reduce the burden on the health system. Objectives This study aimed to determine (1) whether the HCUs phenomenon occurred during the pandemic in Thailand by exploring the pattern of inpatient health expenditures over time from 2016 to 2021; (2) the patient characteristics of HCUs; (3) the top 5 primary diagnoses of HCUs; and (4) the potential predictors associated with being an HCU. Methods The secondary data analysis was conducted via inpatient department (IPD) e-Claim data from the National Health Security Office for the Universal Coverage Scheme, which provides health care to ~ 80% of the Thai population. Health care expenditure over time was calculated, and the characteristics of the population were examined via descriptive analysis. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to explore the potential predictors associated with being an HCU. Results The characteristics of HCUs remained relatively the same from 2016 to 2021. In terms of the proportion of male (55%) to female patients (45%), the age ranged from 55 to 57 years, with an estimated 8-day length of hospital stay and 7 admissions per year, and the average health care cost per patient was ≥ USD 2,860 (100,000 THB). The low-cost users (LCUs) group (the bottom 50% of the population), had more female patients (55%), a younger age ranging from 27 to 33 years, a 3-day length of stay, 1‒2 admissions per year, and a lower average health care cost per patient, which was less than USD 315 (≤ 11,000 THB). Conclusion The HCUs phenomenon still existed even with limited health care accessibility or lockdown measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding could indicate the uniqueness of the need for health services by HCUs, which differ from those of other population groups. By understanding the trends of health care utilization and expenditure, along with potential predictors associated with being an HCU, policies can be introduced to ensure the appropriate allocation of health resources to the right people in need of the right care during future pandemics.

Abstract BackgroundIncreasing physical inactivity is a primary risk factor for diabetes and hypertension, contributing to rising health care expenditure and productivity losses. As Singapore’s aging population grows, there is an increased disease burden on Singapore’s health systems. Large-scale physical activity interventions could potentially reduce the disease burden but face challenges with the uncertainty of long-term health impact and high implementation costs, hindering their adoption. ObjectiveWe examined the cost-effectiveness of the Singapore National Steps Challenge MethodsWe used a Markov model to assess the long-term impact of increased physical activity from the NSC on adults aged 17 years and older. A Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 samples was conducted to compare two situations: the NSC conducted yearly for 10 years against a no-intervention situation with no NSC. The model projected inpatient and outpatient costs and mortality arising from diabetes and hypertension, as well as their complications. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. All future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were done to test the robustness of our model results. ResultsWe estimated that conducting the NSC yearly for 10 years with a mean cohort size of 654,500 participants was projected to prevent 6200 diabetes cases (95% credible interval 3700 to 9100), 10,500 hypertension cases (95% credible interval 6550 to 15,200), and 4930 deaths (95% credible interval 3260 to 6930). This led to a reduction in health care costs of SGD (Singapore dollar) 448 million (95% credible interval SGD 132 million to SGD 1.09 billion; SGD 1=US $0.73 for the year 2019). There would be 78,800 (95% credible interval 55,700 to 102,000) QALYs gained. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 10,000 per QALY gained, the NSC would be cost-saving. When indirect costs were included, the NSC was estimated to reduce societal costs by SGD 1.41 billion (95% credible interval SGD 353 million to SGD 3.80 billion). The model was most sensitive to changes in the inpatient cost of treatment for diabetes complications, time horizon, and program compliance. ConclusionsIn this modeling study, increasing physical activity by conducting a yearly nationwide physical activity intervention was cost-saving, preventing diabetes and hypertension and reducing mortality from these diseases. Our results provide important information for decision-making in countries that may consider introducing similar large-scale physical activity programs.

Abstract The term ‘perspective’ in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders’ viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

Background Globally, there is increasing interest in the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement decision-making. Using current practices and case studies shared by eleven health systems in Asia, a non-binding guidance that seeks to align practices for generating and using RWD/RWE for decision-making in Asia was developed by the REAL World Data In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) Working Group, addressing a current gap and needs among HTA users and generators.Methods The guidance document was developed over two face-to-face workshops, in addition to an online survey, a face-to-face interview and pragmatic search of literature. The specific focus was on what, where and how to collect RWD/RWE.Results All 11 REALISE member jurisdictions participated in the online survey and the first in-person workshop, 10 participated in the second in-person workshop, and 8 participated in the in-depth face-to-face interviews. The guidance document was iteratively reviewed by all working group members and the International Advisory Panel. There was substantial variation in: (a) sources and types of RWD being used in HTA, and (b) the relative importance and prioritization of RWE being used for policy-making. A list of national-level databases and other sources of RWD available in each country was compiled. A list of useful guidance on data collection, quality assurance and study design were also compiled.Conclusion The REALISE guidance document serves to align the collection of better quality RWD and generation of reliable RWE to ultimately inform HTA in Asia.

During COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine was a strategy to facilitate healthcare service delivery minimizing the risk of direct exposure among people. In Thailand, the National Health Security Office has included telemedicine services under the Universal Coverage Scheme to support social distancing policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the patterns of telemedicine service use during major COVID-19 outbreaks including Alpha, Delta, and Omicron in Thailand. We retrospectively analyzed a dataset of telemedicine e-claims from the National Health Security Office, which covers services reimbursed under the Universal Coverage Scheme between December 2020 and August 2022. An interrupted time-series analysis, Pearson correlation analysis and binary logistic regression were performed. Almost 70% of the patients using telemedicine services were over 40 years old. Most patients used services for mental health problems (25.6%) and major noncommunicable diseases, including essential hypertension (12.6%) and diabetes mellitus (9.2%). The daily number of using telemedicine service was strongly correlated with the number of COVID-19 new cases detected. An immediate change in the trend of using telemedicine was detected at the onset of outbreaks along with the surge of infection. The follow-up use of telemedicine services was not substantial among female, older adults patients and those with non-communicable diseases except mental health problems, and infectious diseases. Strategies need to be developed to reinforced healthcare resources for telemedicine during the surge of outbreaks and sustain the use of telemedicine services for chronic and infectious diseases, regardless of the pandemic, and promote the efficiency of healthcare systems.

BackgroundThe durability of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been primarily studied in high-income countries, while evaluation of heterologous vaccine policies in low- and middle-income countries remains limited. ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the duration during which the VE of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens in mitigating serious outcomes, specifically severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization with COVID-19, remains over 50%. MethodsWe formed a dynamic cohort by linking records of Thai citizens aged ≥18 years from citizen vital, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 cases registry databases between May 2021 and July 2022. Encrypted citizen identification numbers were used to merge the data between the databases. This study focuses on 8 common heterologous vaccine sequences: CoronaVac/ChAdOx1, ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1, CoronaVac/ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1, CoronaVac/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV/BBIBP-CorV/BNT162b2, ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, and ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/mRNA-1273. Nonimmunized individuals were considered for comparisons. The cohort was stratified according to the vaccination status, age, sex, province location, month of vaccination, and outcome. Data analysis employed logistic regression to determine the VE, accounting for potential confounders and durability over time, with data observed over a follow-up period of 7 months. ResultsThis study includes 52,580,841 individuals, with approximately 17,907,215 and 17,190,975 receiving 2- and 3-dose common heterologous vaccines (not mutually exclusive), respectively. The 2-dose heterologous vaccinations offered approximately 50% VE against severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization with COVID-19 for 2 months; however, the protection significantly declined over time. The 3-dose heterologous vaccinations sustained over 50% VE against both outcomes for at least 8 months, as determined by logistic regression with durability time-interaction modeling. The vaccine sequence consisting of CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 demonstrated >80% VE against both outcomes, with no evidence of VE waning. The final monthly measured VE of CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 against severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization at 7 months after the last dose was 82% (95% CI 80.3%-84%) and 86.3% (95% CI 83.6%-84%), respectively. ConclusionsIn Thailand, within a 7-month observation period, the 2-dose regimens could not maintain a 50% VE against severe and fatal COVID-19 for over 2 months, but all of the 3-dose regimens did. The CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 regimen showed the best protective effect against severe and fatal COVID-19. The estimated durability of 50% VE for at least 8 months across all 3-dose heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens supports the adoption of heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategies, with a primary series of inactivated virus vaccine and boosting with either a viral vector or an mRNA vaccine, to prevent similar pandemics in low- and middle-income countries.

Abstract Background Typhoid vaccination has been shown to be an effective intervention to prevent enteric fever and is under consideration for inclusion in the national immunization program in Lao PDR. Methods A cost-utility analysis was performed using an age-structured static decision tree model to estimate the costs and health outcomes of introducing TCV. Vaccination strategies combined with five delivery approaches in different age groups compared to no vaccination were considered from the societal perspective, using the Gavi price of 1.5 USD per dose. The vaccination program was considered to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than a threshold of 1 GDP per capita for Lao PDR, equivalent to USD 2,535 in 2020. Results In the model, we estimated 172.2 cases of enteric fever, with 1.3 deaths and a total treatment cost of USD 7,244, based on a birth cohort of 164,662 births without TCV vaccination that was followed over their lifetime. To implement a TCV vaccination program over the lifetime horizon, the estimated cost of the vaccine and administration costs would be between USD 470,934 and USD 919,186. Implementation of the TCV vaccination program would prevent between 14 and 106 cases and 0.1 to 0.8 deaths. None of the vaccination programs appeared to be cost-effective. Conclusions Inclusion of TCV in the national vaccination program in Lao PDR would only be cost-effective if the true typhoid incidence is 25-times higher than our current estimate.

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by widespread and inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Many countries, including those in low- and middle- income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, for many interventions there is little or no economic evidence with respect to their cost-effectiveness. To help better understand the scale of this evidence gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different interventions affecting AMR. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted of economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR. a narrative synthesis of findings was produced. Systematic searches for relevant studies were performed across relevant databases and grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All identified economic evaluation studies were included provided that they reported an economic outcome and stated that the analysed intervention aimed to affect AMR or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Studies that reported clinical endpoints alone were excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. A quality assessment of the evidence used in the included studies was also conducted. Results 28,597 articles were screened and 35 articles were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The review attempted to answer the following questions: (1) What interventions to address AMR have been the subject of an economic evaluation? (2) In what types of setting (e.g. high-income, low-income, regions etc.) have these economic evaluations been focused? (3) Which interventions have been estimated to be cost-effective, and has this result been replicated in other settings/contexts? (4) What economic evaluation methods or techniques have been used to evaluate these interventions? (5) What kind and quality of data has been used in conducting economic evaluations for these interventions? Discussion The review is one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review the literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions. This review addresses an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR and can assist AMR researchers’ understanding of the state of the economic evaluation literature, and therefore inform future research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42020190310).

All health systems must set priorities. Evidence-informed priority-setting (EIPS) is a specific form of systematic priority-setting which involves explicit consideration of evidence to determine the healthcare interventions to be provided. The international Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) was established in 2013 as a collaborative platform to catalyze faster progress on EIPS, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This article summarizes the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from ten years of iDSI partnering with countries to develop EIPS institutions and processes. This is a thematic documentary analysis, structured by iDSI’s theory of change, extracting successes, challenges, and lessons from three external evaluations and 19 internal reports to funders. We identified three phases of iDSI’s work—inception (2013–15), scale-up (2016–2019), and focus on Africa (2019–2023). iDSI has established a global platform for coordinating EIPS, advanced the field, and supported regional networks in Asia and Africa. It has facilitated progress in securing high-level commitment to EIPS, strengthened EIPS institutions, and developed capacity for health technology assessments. This has resulted in improved decisions on service provision, procurement, and clinical care. Major lessons learned include the importance of sustained political will to develop EIPS; a clear EIPS mandate; inclusive governance structures appropriate to health financing context; politically sensitive and country-led support to EIPS, taking advantage of policy windows for EIPS reforms; regional networks for peer support and long-term sustainability; utilization of context appropriate methods such as adaptive HTA; and crucially, donor-funded global health initiatives supporting and integrating with national EIPS systems, not undermining them.

The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) was established in 2007. This article highlights 15 lessons from over 15 years of experience, noting five achievements about what HITAP has done well, five areas that it is currently working on, and five aims for work in the future. HITAP built capacity for HTA and linked research to policy and practice in Thailand. With collaborators from academic and policy spheres, HITAP has mobilized regional and global support, and developed global public goods to enhance the field of HTA. HITAP’s semi-autonomous structure has facilitated these changes, though they have not been without their challenges. HITAP aims to continue its work on HTA for public health interventions and disinvestments, effectively engaging with stakeholders and strategically managing its human resources. Moving forward, HITAP will develop and update global public goods on HTA, work on emerging topics such as early HTA, address issues in digital health, real-world evidence and equity, support HTA development globally, particularly in low-income settings, and seek to engage more effectively with the public. HITAP seeks to learn from its experience and invest in the areas identified so that it can grow sustainably. Its journey may be relevant to other countries and institutions that are interested in developing HTA programs.

Abstract Economic analyses of healthcare interventions are an important consideration in evidence-based policymaking. A key component of such analyses is the costs of interventions, for which most are familiar with using budgets and expenditures. However, economic theory states that the true value of a good/service is the value of the next best alternative forgone as a result of using the resource and therefore observed prices or charges do not necessarily reflect the true economic value of resources. To address this, economic costs are a fundamental concept within (health) economics. Crucially, they are intended to reflect the resources’ opportunity costs (the forgone opportunity to use those resources for another purpose) and they are based on the value of the resource's next-best alternative use that has been forgone. This is a broader conceptualization of a resource’s value than its financial cost and recognizes that resources can have a value that may not be fully captured by their market price and that by using a resource it makes it unavailable for productive use elsewhere. Importantly, economic costs are preferred over financial costs for any health economic analyses aimed at informing decisions regarding the optimum allocation of the limited/competing resources available for healthcare (such as health economic evaluations), and they are also important when considering the replicability and sustainability of healthcare interventions. However, despite this, economic costs and the reasons why they are used is an area that can be misunderstood by professionals without an economic background. In this paper, we outline to a broader audience the principles behind economic costs and when and why they should be used within health economic analyses. We highlight that the difference between financial and economic costs and what adjustments are needed within cost calculations will be influenced by the context of the study, the perspective, and the objective.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.MethodsA systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.ResultsAmong the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152, $8,869, $5,693, p

Abstract Background Out-patient department (OPD) is a crucial component of the healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries including Thailand. A considerable impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its control measures, especially the lockdown, on utilisation of OPD services was expected. This study thus aims to estimate the pattern of OPD utilisation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand including overall utilisation and within each sub-groups including diagnostic group, age group, and health region. Methods This study was a secondary data analysis of aggregated outpatient data from patients covered under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand over a 4-year period (2017–2020). Interrupted time series analyses and segmented Quasi-Poisson regression were used to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the overall OPD utilisation including the impact on each diagnostic group, age groups, health regions, and provinces. Results Analysis of 845,344,946 OPD visits in this study showed a seasonal pattern and increasing trend in monthly OPD visits before the COVID-19 pandemic. A 28% (rate ratio (RR) 0.718, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.631–0.819) and 11% (RR 0.890, 95% CI: 0.811–0.977) reduction in OPD visits was observed during the lockdown and post-lockdown periods, respectively, when compared to the pre-lockdown period. Diseases of respiratory system were most affected with a RR of 0.411 (95% CI: 0.320–0.527), while the number of visits for non-communicable diseases (ICD-10: E00–E90, I00–I99) and elderly (> 60 years) dropped slightly. The post-lockdown trend in monthly OPD visits gradually increased to the pre-pandemic levels in most groups. Conclusions Thailand’s OPD utilisation rate during the COVID-19 lockdown decreased in some diseases, but the service for certain group of patients appeared to remain available. After the COVID-19 lockdown, the rate returned to the pre-pandemic level in a timely manner. Equipped with a knowledge of OPD utilisation pattern during COVID-19 based on a national real-world database could aid with a better preparation of healthcare system for future pandemics.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought the need for regional collaboration on disease prevention and control to the fore. The review by Durrance-Bagale et al offers insights on the enablers, barriers and lessons learned from the experience of various regional initiatives. Translating these lessons into action, however, remains a challenge. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) planned to establish a regional centre for disease control; however, many factors have slowed the realisation of these efforts. Going forward, regional initiatives should be able to address the complexity of emerging infectious diseases through a One Health approach, assess the social and economic impact of diseases on the region and study the real-world effectiveness of regional collaborations. The initiatives should seek to be inclusive of stakeholders including those from the private sector and should identify innovative measures for financing. This advancement will enable regions such as ASEAN to effectively prepare for the next pandemic.

Abstract Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

Return on investment (ROI) analysis is increasingly being used for evaluating the value for money of public health interventions. Given its potential role for informing health policies, it is important that there is a more comprehensive understanding of ROI analysis within the global health field. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of recent research articles reporting an ROI metric for a health intervention within the public sector in any country setting. The database search was limited to literature published in English and studies published between 1 January 2018 and 14 June 2021. Uses and settings where the ROI metric is being applied, key methodological features of the calculations and the types of economic benefits included were extracted. 118 relevant studies were included within this scoping review. We found that ROI analyses of health interventions differed between those that only included fiscal savings (such as prevented medical expenses) and those which incorporated a wider range of benefits (such as monetised health benefits). This highlights the variation in the definition of ROI analyses and supports the finding that ROI analyses are used for a range of different research questions/purposes within the healthcare sector. We also found that the methodologies used in ROI calculations were inconsistent and often poorly reported. This review demonstrates that there is notable variation in the methodology surrounding recent ROI calculations of healthcare interventions, as well as the definition of ROI analysis. We recommend that ROI metrics should be carefully interpreted before they are used to inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of healthcare resources. To improve the consistency of future studies, we also set out recommended use cases for ROI analysis and a reporting checklist.

ObjectiveEvaluate the cost and clinical impacts of rapid whole-exome sequencing (rWES) for managing pediatric patients with unknown etiologies of critical illnesses through an expert elicitation experiment.MethodPhysicians in the intervention group (n = 10) could order rWES to complete three real-world case studies, while physicians in the control group (n = 8) could not. Costs and health outcomes between and within groups were compared.ResultsThe cost incurred in the intervention group was consistently higher than the control by 60,000–70,000 THB. Fewer other investigation costs were incurred when rWES could provide a diagnosis. Less cost was incurred when an rWES that could lead to a change in management was ordered earlier. Diagnostic accuracy and the quality of non-pharmaceutical interventions were superior when rWES was available.ConclusionIn acute pediatric settings, rWES offered clinical benefits at the average cost of 60,000–70,000 THB. Whether this test is cost-effective warrants further investigations. Several challenges, including cost and ethical concerns for assessing high-cost technology for rare diseases in resource-limited settings, were potentially overcome by our study design using expert elicitation methods.

Summary: Background: The Government of Indonesia implemented health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure quality and cost control in the National Health Insurance Program (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional/JKN). The current aim of the study was to improve the usefulness of future economic evaluation for resource allocation by appraising current methodology, reporting, and source of evidence quality of studies. Methods: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to search for relevant studies using a systematic review. The methodology and reporting adherence were appraised according to Indonesia's HTA Guideline issued in 2017. The differences in adherence before and after the guideline dissemination were compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for methodology adherence wherever appropriate, and the Mann–Whitney test for reporting adherence. The source of evidence quality was assessed using evidence hierarchy. Two scenarios of the study start date and the guideline dissemination period were tested using sensitivity analyses. Findings: Eighty-four studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and two local journals. Only two articles cited the guideline. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was found between the pre-dissemination and post-dissemination period with respect to methodology adherence, except for outcome choice. Studies during the post-dissemination period showed a higher score for reporting which was statistically significant (P = 0.01). However, the sensitivity analyses revealed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in methodology (except for modelling type, P = 0.03) and reporting adherence between the two periods. Interpretation: The guideline did not impact the methodology and reporting standard used in the included studies. Recommendations were provided to improve the usefulness of economic evaluations for Indonesia. Funding: The Access and Delivery Partnership (ADP) hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI).

IntroductionPhysical inactivity increases the risks of several common yet serious non-communicable diseases, costing a tremendous amount of health expenditure globally. This study aimed to estimate the association between health costs and physical inactivity in Thailand.MethodsData from the Physical Activity at Work cluster randomized controlled trial participants with valid objective physical activity data were extracted. Health costs were collected using the Health and Welfare Survey and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire and were categorized into past-month outpatient illness, past-year inpatient illness, and past-week presenteeism and absenteeism. Time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was used to determine the activity level according to the current guideline (i.e., ≥150 minutes moderate-intensity or ≥75 minutes vigorous-intensity equivalent physical activity per week). The primary analysis evaluated the association between direct cost (treatment and travel costs) and societal cost (direct cost plus absenteeism due to the illness) of past-month outpatient illness and physical inactivity using a two-part model.ResultsIn total, 277 participants with a mean age of 38.7 were included. Average direct and societal cost due to past-month outpatient illness were 146 THB (3.99 USD) (SD = 647 THB) and 457 THB (12.5 USD) (SD = 1390 THB), respectively. Compared to active participants, direct and societal cost of past-month outpatient illness were 153 THB (4.18 USD) (95%CI: –54.7 to 360 THB) and 426 THB (11.7 USD) (95%CI: 23.3 to 829 THB) higher in physically inactive individuals, respectively, adjusted for covariates. The additional societal cost of past-month outpatient illness was 145% higher in physically inactive participants compared to active participants. On the other hand, there was no significant association in direct and societal cost of past-year inpatient illness nor past-week indirect costs between physically active and non-active participants.DiscussionResults were similar to recent findings in different countries. However, the findings should be generalized with caution due to the small sample size and potential bias from reverse causation. Future research is crucial for clarifying the health costs of physical inactivity in Thailand and other countries.

Abstract 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

Abstract 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.

Objectives Endovascular therapy (EVT) has proven to be clinically effective in treating large vessel occlusion acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), either alone or in combination with intravenous alteplase. Despite this, there is a limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of EVT in Thailand and other low-income and middle-income countries. This study aims to assess whether EVT is a cost-effective therapy for AIS, and to estimate the fiscal burden to the Thai government through budget impact analysis.Methods An economic evaluation was performed to compare AIS therapy with and without EVT from a societal perspective. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Clinical parameters were derived from both national and international literature, while cost and utility data were collected locally. The analysis applied a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160 000 Baht (~$5000) per QALY, as set by the Thai government.Results Both EVT alone and EVT combined with intravenous alteplase, among patients who are ineligible and eligible for intravenous alteplase, respectively, improved health outcomes but incurred additional cost. The combination of EVT and intravenous alteplase was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 146 800 THB per QALY gained compared with intravenous alteplase alone, and the ICER of EVT alone compared with supportive care among patients ineligible for intravenous alteplase was estimated at 115 000 THB per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that the price of EVT has the greatest impact on model outcomes. Over a time horizon of 5 years, the introduction of EVT into the Thai health benefit package would require an additional budget of 887 million THB, assuming 2000 new cases per year.Conclusions EVT represents good value for money in the Thai context, both when provided to patients eligible for intravenous alteplase, and when provided alone to those who are ineligible for intravenous alteplase.

Abstract 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.

IntroductionThe arrival of COVID-19 vaccines in Thailand has supported the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers (HCWs) in Thailand before and after vaccines' availability and investigated factors (both enablers and barriers) affecting their decisions.MethodsTwo online self-administered questionnaires were distributed to HCWs in two time-periods: (1) the pre-vaccine arrival period (prior to COVID-19 vaccines' arrival in Thailand, January 28 to February 16, 2021); and (2) the post-vaccine arrival period (April 21 to May 9, 2021). Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regression were conducted to examine factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.ResultsThere were 55,068 respondents in the pre-vaccine arrival period and 27,319 respondents in the post-vaccine arrival period. In the pre-vaccine arrival period, 55.0% of respondents were willing to accept the vaccines, 35.4% were uncertain, and 9.6% declined. In the post-vaccine arrival period, ~16% already received two doses of either the Sinovac or AstraZeneca vaccine, and 43% were administered one dose. Approximately 12% of those who had received the first dose were uncertain or not willing to accept the second dose. Demographic and socio-demographic factors of participants, including their sex, place of residence, and whether they were frontline COVID-19 workers, were found to be the significant factors explaining vaccination hesitancy. Moreover, when comparing the pre-vaccine arrival and post-vaccine arrival periods, it was found that older HCWs were more likely to decline a COVID-19 vaccine in the pre-vaccine arrival period; on the other hand, older HCWs were less likely to decline or be uncertain to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the post-vaccine arrival period.ConclusionInformation on HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, including who is more likely to accept the vaccines, could assist in planning vaccine allocation to both HCWs and the general public, who often believe HCWs' recommendations. This study's findings set out how policies can be addressed to reduce vaccine hesitancy. This study also highlights HCWs' characteristics (including gender, work region, occupation, and history of receiving influenza vaccination) and the reasons they cited for their vaccine acceptance or hesitance.

Objective: To estimate the economic impact of border closure and social distancing by estimating the decline of gross domestic product (GDP) in Kenya, Singapore and Thailand.Methods: We analysed secondary data retrospectively. To calculate impact of NPIs on GDP, the relationship between GDP and stock market index was examined using ordinary least squares (OLS). Then, autoregressive and moving averages (ARMA) model was used to examine the impact of NPI on stock market index. The change in GDP due to NPIs was derived by multiplying coefficients of OLS and ARMA models.Results: An increase in stock market index correlated with an increase in GDP, while both social distancing and border closure negatively correlated with stock market index. Implementation of NPIs correlated with the decline in GDP. Thai border closure had a greater decline in GDP than social distancing; Kenya exhibited the same trends; Singapore had the opposite trend.Conclusion: We quantified the magnitude of economic impact of NPIs in terms of GDP decline by linking stock market index and GDP. This approach may be applicable in other settings.

Abstract Background At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Thailand had almost depleted its critical care resources, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. This prompted the necessity to develop a national guideline for resource allocation. This paper describes the development process of a national guideline for critical resource allocation in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The guideline development process consisted of three steps: (1) rapid review of existing rationing guidelines and literature; (2) interviews of Thai clinicians experienced in caring for COVID-19 cases; and (3) multi-stakeholder consultations. At steps 1 and 2, data was synthesized and categorized using a thematic and content analysis approach, and this guided the formulation of the draft guideline. Within step 3, the draft Thai critical care allocation guideline was debated and finalized before entering the policy-decision stage. Results Three-order prioritization criteria consisting of (1) clinical prognosis using four tools (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, frailty assessment and cognitive impairment assessment), (2) number of life-years saved and (3) social usefulness were proposed by the research team based on literature reviews and interviews. At consultations, stakeholders rejected using life-years as a criterion due to potential age and gender discrimination, as well as social utility due to a concern it would foster public distrust, as this judgement can be arbitrary. It was agreed that the attending physician is required to be the decision-maker in the Thai medico-legal context, while a patient review committee would play an advisory role. Allocation decisions are to be documented for transparency, and no appealing mechanism is to be applied. This guideline will be triggered only when demand exceeds supply after the utmost efforts to mobilize surge capacity. Once implemented, it is applicable to all patients, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, requiring critical care resources prior to ICU admission and during ICU stay. Conclusions The guideline development process for the allocation of critical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand was informed by scientific evidence, medico-legal context, existing norms and societal values to reduce risk of public distrust given the sensitive nature of the issue and ethical dilemmas of the guiding principle, though it was conducted at record speed. Our lessons can provide an insight for the development of similar prioritization guidelines, especially in other low- and middle-income countries.

Adverse events and medical harm comprise major health concerns for people all over the world, including Thailand. The prevalence and burden of medical harm must always be monitored, and a voluntary database should not be used to represent national value. The purpose of this study is to estimate the national prevalence and economic impact of medical harm in Thailand using routine administrative data from the inpatient department electronic claim database under the Universal Coverage scheme from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that there are approximately 400,000 visits with potentially unsafe medical care per year (or 7% of all inpatient visits under the Universal Coverage scheme). The annual cost of medical harm is estimated to be approximately USD 278 million (approximately THB 9.6 billion), with an average of 3.5 million bed-days per year. This evidence can be used to raise safety awareness and support medical harm prevention policies. Future work should focus on improving medical harm surveillance using better data quality and more comprehensive data on medical harm.

Abstract 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.

Introduction Precision medicine (PM) involves gene testing to identify disease risk, enable early diagnosis or guide therapeutic choice, and targeted gene therapy. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cost-effectiveness profile of PM stratified by intervention type, identify sources of heterogeneity in the value-for-money of PM.Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit and CRD databases for studies published in English language or with translation in English between 1 January 2011 and 8 July 2021 on the topic of cost-effectiveness analysis of PM interventions. The focus will be on studies that reported health and economic outcomes. Study quality will be assessed using the Biases in Economic Studies checklist. The incremental net benefit of PM screening, diagnostic, treatment-targeting and therapeutic interventions over conventional strategies will be respectively pooled across studies using a random-effect model if heterogeneity is present, otherwise a fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on disease area, WHO region and World Bank country-income level. Additionally, we will identify the potential sources of heterogeneity with random-effect meta-regressions. Finally, biases will be detected using jackknife sensitivity analysis, funnel plot assessment and Egger’s tests.Ethics and dissemination For this type of study ethics approval or formal consent is not required. The results will be disseminated at various presentations and feedback sessions, in conference abstracts and manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021272956.

COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A ‘fitness-for-purpose’ flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A ‘reporting standards trajectory’, which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, ‘minimum’, ‘acceptable’, and ‘ideal’, and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for “collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation” which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.

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.

Abstract 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,

IntroductionAcute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies; however, optimal diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis remains challenging. We used the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown policy as a natural experiment to explore potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand. The aim of this study was to estimate the potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand by examining service utilization before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown policy.MethodsA secondary data analysis of patients admitted with acute appendicitis under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand over a 6-year period between 2016 and 2021 was conducted. The trend of acute appendicitis was plotted using a 14-day rolling average of daily cases. Patient characteristics, clinical management, and outcomes were descriptively presented and compared among three study periods, namely pre-pandemic, lockdown, and post-lockdown.ResultsThe number of overall acute appendicitis cases decreased from 25,407 during pre-pandemic to 22,006 during lockdown (13.4% reduction) and 21,245 during post-lockdown (16.4% reduction). This reduction was mostly due to a lower incidence of uncomplicated acute appendicitis, whereas cases of generalized peritonitis were scarcely affected by the pandemic. There was an increasing trend towards the usage of diagnostic computerized tomography for acute appendicitis but no significant difference in treatment modalities and complication rates.ConclusionThe stable rates of generalized peritonitis and complications during the COVID-19 lockdown, despite fewer admissions overall, suggest that there may have been overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand. Policy makers could use these findings to improve clinical practice for acute appendicitis in Thailand and support the efficient utilization of surgical services in the future, especially during pandemics.

BackgroundEconomic evaluations have been widely used to inform and guide policy-making process in healthcare resources allocation as a part of an evidence package. An intervention is considered cost-effective if an ICER is less than a cost-effectiveness threshold (CET), where a CET represents the acceptable price for a unit of additional health gain which a decision-maker is willing to pay. There has been discussion to increase a CET in many settings such as the United Kingdom and Thailand. To the best of our knowledge, Thailand is the only country that has an explicit CET and has revised their CET, not once but twice. Hence, the situation in Thailand provides a unique opportunity for evaluating the impact of changing CET on healthcare expenditure and manufacturers' behaviours in the real-world setting. Before we decide whether a CET should be increased, information on what happened after the CET was increased in the past could be informative and helpful.ObjectivesThis study protocol describes a proposed plan to investigate the impact of increased cost-effectiveness threshold using Thailand as a case study. Specifically, we will examine the impact of increasing CET on the drug prices submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the National List of Essential Medicine (NLEM), the decision to include or exclude medications in the NLEM, and the overall budget impact.Materials and designsRetrospective data analysis of the impact of increased CET on national drug committee decisions in Thailand (an upper middle-income country) will be conducted and included data from various sources such as literature, local organizations (e.g. Thai Food and Drug Administration), and inputs from stakeholder consultation meetings. The outcomes include: (1) drug price submitted by the manufacturers and final drug price included in the NLEM if available; (2) decisions about whether the drug was included in the NLEM for reimbursement; and (3) budget impact. The independent variables include a CET, the variable of interest, which can take values of THB100,000, THB120,000, or THB160,000, and potential confounders such as whether this drug was for a chronic disease, market size, and primary endpoint. We will conduct separate multivariable regression analysis for each outcome specified above.DiscussionUnderstanding the impact of increasing the CET would be helpful in assisting the decision to use and develop an appropriate threshold for one's own setting. Due to the nature of the study design, the findings will be prone to confounding effect and biases; therefore, the analyses will be adjusted for potential confounders and statistical methods will be explored to minimize biases. Knowledge gained from the study will be conveyed to the public through various disseminations such as reports, policy briefs, academic journals, and presentations.

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). 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. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. 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. 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.

Introduction Several 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 analysis An 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 dissemination Ethics 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.

Objectives The 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 setting A 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).Participants Study participants included Thai citizens who had at least one inpatient admission to hospitals under the UCS over the study period.Results Over 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.Conclusions This 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.

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

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background To evaluate the effectiveness of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) in actual practice for treating patients with retinal diseases in Thailand. Methods A prospective, multi-centre, observational study was conducted among eight hospitals in their ophthalmology outpatient departments. Participants consisted of patients who had previously not received any IVB or IVR treatment between 2013 and 2014. The primary outcome measurement was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the end of the follow-up period compared to baseline. Results There were 1629 treatment-naïve patients for the pro re nata (PRN) treatment pattern and 226 treatment-naive patients for the three-injections (3Inj) treatment pattern. BCVA improvements were found in 35% of the PRN group and 47% of the 3Inj group; however, it was not clinically meaningful between the IVB and IVR groups (P-value = 0.568 for PRN, P-value = 0.103 for 3Inj). A multivariable logistic regression (using the propensity score) showed that positive factors associated with vision improvement for the PRN pattern were the number of drug injections, having retinal vein occlusion, and under 60 years of age, while good BCVA at baseline was a negative predictive factor. For the 3Inj pattern, under 60 years of age and baseline BCVA were statistically significant predictors. Nonetheless, diabetes mellitus (DM) without other comorbidities was a statistically significant predictor of low response to vision improvement compared to DM with other comorbidities. Conclusions This study was the first observational, prospective study to evaluate the real-life effectiveness of IVB and IVR in Thailand. The majority of participants who used IVB or IVR showed improvements in BCVA after treatment. Further evaluation such as long-term follow-ups and subsequent comparison of effectiveness between IVB and IVR should be investigated due to the limited sample of IVR patients. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trial Registry TCTR20141002001. Registered 02 October 2014 (retrospectively registered).

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.

Abstract 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.

Public payers around the world are increasingly using cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to assess the value-for-money of an intervention and make coverage decisions. However, there is still much confusion about the meaning and uses of the CET, how it should be calculated, and what constitutes an adequate evidence base for its formulation. One widely referenced and used threshold in the last decade has been the 1-3 GDP per capita, which is often attributed to the Commission on Macroeconomics and WHO guidelines on Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). For many reasons, however, this threshold has been widely criticised; which has led experts across the world, including the WHO, to discourage its use. This has left a vacuum for policy-makers and technical staff at a time when countries are wanting to move towards Universal Health Coverage. This article seeks to address this gap by offering five practical options for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries that can be used instead of the 1-3 GDP rule, to combine existing evidence with fair decision-rules or develop locally relevant CETs. It builds on existing literature as well as an engagement with a group of experts and decision-makers working in low, middle and high income countries.

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).

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.

AimThis 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOf 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%).ConclusionOur 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.