A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council

A Value Set for EQ-5D-5L in the United Arab Emirates

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop a value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on preferences of the general adult population of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

METHODS

The study followed the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol and involved conducting interviewer-administered face-to-face or online interviews in Arabic or English, using the EuroQol Valuation Technology with a sample of 1005 adults representing the UAE general population. Sample recruitment involved a 2-stage quota sampling strategy across the 7 emirates of the UAE, ensuring representation of nationals and expatriates. Various models using composite time trade-off data only, discrete choice experiment data only, and hybrid using both composite time trade-off and discrete choice experiment data were examined, along with various sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the models.

RESULTS

The average age of respondents was 39 years (SD 10.8), 44.5% were female, and 11% were UAE nationals. The best-performing model to generate the value set for the EQ-5D-5L was the hybrid tobit model censored at -1.0, corrected for heteroskedasticity. Values ranged from -0.654 for the worst health state (55555) to 1 for full health (11111) and 0.962 for 11211, with 15.3% of predicted values worse than dead. Mobility problems had the largest impact on health state preference values relative to other dimensions.

CONCLUSION

This value set will facilitate the application and use of the EQ-5D-5L instrument in the UAE population in generating local evidence on the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions, as well as to enhance other applications of EQ-5D in population health assessment and health systems.

Economic Evaluation of Health Interventions: A Critical Review

Background

Economic evaluation is used for the optimal allocation of resources in the health sector. While a large number of economic evaluation studies have been conducted, there is less critical review of these studies. We critically examined the economic evaluation studies of preventive health interventions.

Methods

The study was carried out using critical review method. Seven databases (i.e., PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer Link, and Elsevier) were searched to find articles on economic evaluation of health interventions published from 1985 to 2018. In addition, the references of retrieved studies were hand screened for articles that were not indexed in these databases. Finally, 206 articles, including 33 cost- benefit analysis, 146 cost- effectiveness analysis, and 27 cost-utility analysis were included in this study. These studies were critically evaluated using a checklist of 11 criteria.

Results

Only 20% of the studies met all the methodological criteria of health economic evaluation. The cost perspective, costs type, cost data source, and cost measurement were not explained and discussed in 17%, 20%, 5%, and 33% of studies respectively. Outcome data sources and outcome valuation method were only mentioned in 53% and 69% of studies. The sensitivity analysis and results' generalizability were not reported in 16% and 46% of studies.

Conclusion

The quality of economic evaluation studies is low, and it can be misleading if resource allocation decisions are made using this evidence. Authors should use valid protocols to conduct and report economic evaluation studies, and journals' editors should use valid checklists to evaluate these articles.

Disease-Related Costs Published in The Middle East and North Africa Region: Systematic Review and Analysis of Transferability

BACKGROUND

In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) the scarcity of local cost data is a key barrier to conducting health economic evaluations. We systematically reviewed reports of disease-related costs from MENA and analysed their transferability within the region.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and included full text English papers that reported disease-related costs from the local populations of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen between 1995 and 2019. Screening, study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate. Study-related variables, costing methods, all costs and their characteristics were extracted and analysed via descriptive methods. From multi-country studies of MENA employing homogenous costing methods, we estimated the ratio (cost transfer coefficient) between the relative differences in direct medical costs and macroeconomic indicators via robust regression. We predicted each cost via the estimated cost transfer formula and evaluated prediction error between true and predicted (transferred) costs.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1646 records, 206 full text papers and 3525 costs from 84 diagnoses. Transferability was analysed involving 144 direct medical costs from eight multi-country studies. Adjusting the average of available foreign costs by 0.28 times the relative difference in GDP per capita provided the most accurate estimates. The correlation between true and predicted costs was 0.96; 68% of predicted costs fell in the true ± 50% range. Predictions were more accurate for costs from studies that involved the largest number of countries, for countries outside the Gulf region and for drug costs versus unit or disease costs.

CONCLUSION

The estimated cost transfer formula allows the prediction of missing costs in MENA if only GDP per capita is available for adjustment to the local setting. Input costs for the formula should be collected from multiple sources and match the decision situation.

A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation Studies of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Interventions in the Middle East and North Africa

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.

Methodological Approaches to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Saudi Arabia: What Can We Learn? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The recent establishment of the health technology assessment (HTA) entity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has resulted in increased interest in economic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical approaches used in published economic evaluations and the limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies that could affect the ability to perform economic evaluations in the KSA.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations performed for the KSA over the past 10 years. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed. A CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. Reported limitations were classified into domains including the definition of perspectives, identification of comparators, estimation of costs and resources, and use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold.

RESULTS

Twelve evaluations were identified; most involved cost-effectiveness analysis (92%). Missing and unclear data were found within the CHEERS criteria. Regardless of the perspective used, most described the perspective as an "institutional" perspective (70%) and almost half were reclassified by the current reviewer (42%). Most did not clearly state the comparator (83%), and published model comparators were commonly used (50%). Resource estimation was mostly performed by the authors of the respective studies (67%), and costs were mostly obtained from hospital institutional data (75%). The lack of an established threshold for the country-specific willingness to pay was observed in 50% of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations from the KSA are limited. Capacity building and country-specific HTA guidelines could improve the quality of evaluations to better inform decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Economic analysis of health technology should follow standard guidelines. Unfortunately, these guides are often underutilized, and our findings identify considerable missing, not clearly stated, or incomplete data within the analyses, which can weaken the impact of the recommendations.The limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies emphasize the suboptimal quality of the reporting. A lack of data was frequently identified and resulted in using "institutional" practice as a major source of data input for the analyses.In light of the call for the establishment of an HTA entity in the KSA, framing a standard analytic approach when conducting economic evaluations will support HTA in informing resource allocation decisions. We hope that our findings highlight the need for country-specific guidance to improve practice and enhance future research.

Cancer Impacts on Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Income Loss, and Informal (Unpaid) Care: A Cross-Sectional Study of Patient Perspective

A paper-based questionnaire was used to measure out-of-pocket expenses, income loss, and informal (unpaid) care from the cancer patient’s perspective. A total of 181 adult solid cancer patients on chemotherapy for at least 3 months were recruited from 1 teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The majority were female (66%) and 41% were 60 years of age or older. A total of 107 respondents used their own car for transport to and from the hospital to receive chemotherapy (median distance 42 km). Over the last 4 weeks, 21% purchased medications, 18% visited a physician, and 8% visited a physiotherapist, spending a median amount of $47, $220, and $793, respectively. A total of 47 participants were employed at the time of their cancer diagnoses, and 32% of them reported some loss of income. A total of 85% of respondents were escorted by a carer during chemotherapy sessions. Approximately 64%, 31%, 61%, 43%, and 28% reported getting help from a carer for housework, child care, shopping, medicine taking, and personal care, respectively. The carer spent on average 50 h per week looking after the patient.

The Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ): Translation and Cognitive Debriefing of the Arabic Version

The aim of this study was to translate the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ) from English into Arabic and perform cognitive debriefing in a Saudi Arabian setting. We conducted the translation according to guidelines, including two independent forward translations and a backward translation. Cognitive debriefing was carried out in two stages. First, the pre-final translated versions of the two questionnaires were tested on a group of respondents (n = 5) using face-to-face or telephone interviews. The participants completed a copy of the questionnaires, identified items or questions that were confusing or misunderstood, and then answered a series of open-ended questions about their understanding of each instruction, question and response option. Second, another group of participants (n = 17) completed the questionnaire and circled any word that was confusing or difficult to understand and provided comments on the questionnaires. The Arabic translation and linguistic validation were realized without any major difficulties. The few changes made after cognitive debriefing generally related to changing one word to a more appropriate Arabic word. The final Arabic translation needs to be validated for psychometric properties such as validity and reliability before being recommended for use in future research.