OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence available: 1) on government initiatives to mandate transparency in drug pricing worldwide, 2) on the reported effects of drug pricing transparency initiatives on drug price, and 3) on the limitations and barriers of the implementation of drug pricing transparency.
METHODS: Databases such as Medline-Ovid, Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, and Science Direct were used to search for relevant literature from inception to February 2018. A manual search of grey literature such as policy papers, governmental publications, and websites was also performed to obtain the information that was not available in the articles. Using narrative synthesis, the results were critically assessed and summarized according to its context of drug pricing approaches.
RESULTS: Of the 4382 relevant articles located, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for drug price transparency initiatives. Only 3 studies reported the outcomes on the regulation of drug prices. Two studies in South Africa showed that price transparency initiatives did not necessarily reduce drug prices. Another study in the Philippines indicated a reduction in medicines' price based on the effects of government-mediated access prices. The limitations and barriers in price transparency initiatives include fragmentation of the healthcare system and nondisclosure of discounts and rebates by pharmaceutical companies.
CONCLUSION: Drug pricing transparency initiatives have been implemented in many countries and commonly coexist with a country's pricing policies. Nevertheless, due to sparse evidence, the effect of drug price transparency initiatives on price control is still inconclusive.
METHODOLOGY: Using the newly developed PID Life Index software, the index of implementation of principles of care in the management of PIDs patients involving the six participating SEA countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Philippines) were extracted. For each of the six separate principles, the index from the six countries will be compared and presented based on the calculated index.
RESULTS: Comparative analysis of the six principles of care of PID in the SEA countries showed low diagnostic rate with minimal availability of diagnostic tests options. Generally, almost all SEA countries provide curative treatments, vaccines, and anti-infectious therapies although the reimbursement scheme varied in relieving patients' financial burden. We also highlighted the active involvement of patient organizations in SEA, with main areas of work focused on advocacy and increasing awareness among public and healthcare professionals.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It is applaudable that the SEA continent is gradually strengthening its work in management of PID, especially in Thailand and Vietnam. However, more emphasis must be placed among stakeholders in SEA countries towards successful implementation of the PoC for a holistic management of PID patients.
OBJECTIVE: Building on our previous research that analyzed integrated RWD warehouses in India, Thailand, and Taiwan, this study extends the research to 7 distinct health care systems: Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. We aimed to map the evolving landscape of RWD, preferences for methodologies, and database use and archetype the health systems based on existing intrinsic capability for RWD generation.
METHODS: A systematic scoping review methodology was used, centering on contemporary English literature on PubMed (search date: May 9, 2023). Rigorous screening as defined by eligibility criteria identified RWD studies from multiple health care facilities in at least 1 of the 7 target Asian nations. Point estimates and their associated errors were determined for the data collected from eligible studies.
RESULTS: Of the 1483 real-world evidence citations identified on May 9, 2023, a total of 369 (24.9%) fulfilled the requirements for data extraction and subsequent analysis. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia contributed to ≥100 publications, with each country marked by a higher proportion of single-country studies at 51% (80/157), 66.2% (86/130), and 50% (50/100), respectively, and were classified as solo scholars. Indonesia, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had fewer publications and a higher proportion of cross-country collaboration studies (CCCSs) at 79% (26/33), 58% (18/31), 74% (20/27), and 86% (19/22), respectively, and were classified as global collaborators. Collaboration with countries outside the 7 target nations appeared in 84.2% to 97.7% of the CCCSs of each nation. Among target nations, Singapore and Malaysia emerged as preferred research partners for other nations. From 2018 to 2023, most nations showed an increasing trend in study numbers, with Vietnam (24.5%) and Pakistan (21.2%) leading the growth; the only exception was the Philippines, which declined by -14.5%. Clinical registry databases were predominant across all CCCSs from every target nation. For single-country studies, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines favored clinical registries; Singapore had a balanced use of clinical registries and electronic medical or health records, whereas Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Vietnam leaned toward electronic medical or health records. Overall, 89.9% (310/345) of the studies took >2 years from completion to publication.
CONCLUSIONS: The observed variations in contemporary RWD publications across the 7 nations in Asia exemplify distinct research landscapes across nations that are partially explained by their diverse economic, clinical, and research settings. Nevertheless, recognizing these variations is pivotal for fostering tailored, synergistic strategies that amplify RWD's potential in guiding future health care research and policy decisions.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/43741.