METHODS: Literature and government documents were reviewed and analyzed by authors with experiences in HTA and drug policy in the country.
RESULTS: The structure of HTA and its process in the drug selection of the NLEM were described, followed by the outcomes of the use of HTA. Examples of lowering drug prices, as a result of price negotiation using HTA, were presented. A few examples were also provided to demonstrate how decisions were made from considering factors beyond cost-effectiveness findings. Finally, challenges on various issues including improvement of HTA structure and process were discussed for the future direction of HTA in Thailand.
CONCLUSIONS: HTA has been adopted as a tool for the drug selection of the NLEM to help Thailand achieve universal health coverage. Nevertheless, various challenges exist and need to be addressed.
METHODS: Four attributes (ie, the scientific proof of effectiveness, the scientific proof of safety, the source of recommendation, and cost) were identified from a systematic review and focus group interviews. They were used to develop a DCE questionnaire. Consumers at community pharmacies in Malaysia were asked to respond to 8 DCE choice sets. A conditional logit model was employed to obtain the relative importance of each attribute and to estimate respondents' WTP for nutraceuticals.
RESULTS: A total of 111 valid responses were analyzed. A negative constant term in the developed model indicated that generally the respondents preferred not to use nutraceuticals before they considered the study attributes. The respondents preferred nutraceuticals with no side effect, clear evidence of effectiveness, and recommendation of a healthcare professional. The respondents were willing to pay $252/month more for nutraceuticals proven with no side effect than for those without proof of safety, and $102/month more for nutraceuticals proven with clear effectiveness than for those without proof of effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Consumers weighed relatively high on the availability of safety and effectiveness proofs when they chose nutraceuticals. The study highlights on the crucial need to inform consumers using clinical evidences of nutraceuticals as the information is highly preferred by consumers.
METHODS: A retrospective database analysis at a university-affiliated hospital in Thailand was used. Diabetic patients receiving glucose-lowering medications from July 2008 to June 2011 were included. Patients were categorized into those exposed and not exposed to thiazolidinediones (TZDs). PSs were estimated by using conventional PS and CTS-PS. In the CTS-PS, PS was separately estimated for three specific calendar time periods. Patients were matched 1:1 using caliper matching. The outcomes were cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalizations. The TZD and non-TZD groups were compared with Cox proportional hazard models.
RESULTS: A total of 2165 patients were included. The average conventional PS was 0.198 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.195-0.202), while the average PS in the CTS-PS approach was 0.212 (0.206-0.218), 0.180 (0.173-0.188), and 0.205 (0.197-0.213) for July 2008 to June 2009, July 2009 to June 2010, and July 2010 to June 2011, respectively. The average difference in PS was 0.012 (P < 0.001), -0.009 (P ≤ 0.002), and 0.000 (P = 0.950) in the three calendar time periods. The adjusted hazard ratios of the conventional PS-matched cohort were 0.97 (95% CI 0.39-2.45) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.20) for CVD-related and all-cause hospitalizations, while the adjusted hazard ratios of the CTS-PS-matched cohort were 1.11 (95% CI 0.43-2.88) and 1.12 (95% CI 0.91-1.39), respectively.
CONCLUSION: CTS-PS is different from PS estimated by using the conventional approach. CTS-PS should be considered when a pattern of medication use has changed over the study period.
METHODS: A budget impact model was built to assess the cost implication of introducing emicizumab for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in people with hemophilia A with inhibitors. It was based on the public healthcare system in Malaysia over a 5-year duration. The primary analysis computed healthcare costs for emicizumab compared with no prophylactic regimen to calculate the budget needed to treat all patients with hemophilia A with inhibitors.
RESULTS: The introduction of emicizumab resulted in a total incremental budget of Malaysian Ringgit (RM) 20 356 897 ($4 917 125) during the first year. The total cost for the current situation (no prophylaxis) was RM13 425 941 ($3 242 981), whereas the total cost for the new situation (prophylaxis with emicizumab) was RM33 782 838 ($8 160 106). The 5-year cumulative incremental budget impact from 2021 to 2025 was RM97 205 459 ($23 479 579) with an uncertainty range from -RM4 869 886 (-$1 176 301) to RM138 035 597 ($33 341 932) and a total of 72 patients treated with emicizumab. In a sensitivity analysis, the use of emicizumab was cost saving if the annual bleeding rate was greater than 16 instead of 6 times per year.
CONCLUSION: The 5-year budget impact might be considered reasonable and possibly cost saving. The model and approach used in this study to obtain relevant parameters where scarce data exist may help other jurisdictions with future adaptation.
METHODS: A state-transition microsimulation model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of 4 treatments: standard care, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare provider's perspective over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate in a hypothetical cohort of people with T2D. Data input were informed from literature and local data when available. Outcome measures include costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and net monetary benefits. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainties.
RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, the costs to treat a person with T2D ranged from RM 12 494 to RM 41 250, whereas the QALYs gains ranged from 6.155 to 6.731, depending on the treatment. Based upon a willingness-to-pay threshold of RM 29 080 per QALY, we identified SGLT2i as the most cost-effective glucose-lowering treatment, as add-on to standard care over patient's lifetime, with the net monetary benefit of RM 176 173 and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of RM 12 279 per QALY gained. The intervention also added 0.577 QALYs and 0.809 LYs compared with standard care. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that SGLT2i had the highest probability of being cost-effective in Malaysia across varying willingness-to-pay threshold. The results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i was found to be the most cost-effective intervention to mitigate diabetes-related complications.