Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Dhamanti I, Suwantika AA, Adlia A, Yamani LN, Yakub F
    Int J Gen Med, 2023;16:609-618.
    PMID: 36845341 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S400458
    The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe global impact. A range of campaigns and activities, including vaccines, are being implemented to counteract this pandemic. Using observational data, the goal of this scoping review is to identify adverse events connected with COVID-19 vaccinations. We conduct a scoping study and searched three databases from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 through June 2022. Based on our criteria and searched keywords, the review included eleven papers in total, with the majority of the studies being conducted in developed countries. The study populations varied and included general community populations, healthcare professionals, military forces, and patients with systemic lupus and cancer. This study includes vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Moderna. The COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events were classified into three types: local side effects, systemic side effects, and other side effects such as allergies. The adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are mild to moderate in severity, with no significant influence or interference in individual daily activities and no unique patterns in cause of death among vaccine-related deaths. According to the findings of these investigations, the COVID-19 vaccine is safe to administer and induces protection. It is vital to convey accurate information to the public about vaccination side effects, potential adverse responses, and the safety level of the vaccines supplied. Multiple strategies must be implemented at the individual, organizational, and population levels to eliminate vaccine hesitance. Future studies could investigate the vaccine's effect on people of various ages and medical conditions.
  2. Suwantika AA, Kautsar AP, Zakiyah N, Abdulah R, Boersma C, Postma MJ
    Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2020;16:969-977.
    PMID: 33116546 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S260377
    Background: The annual gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) per capita of Indonesia ($24) remains relatively lower than the annual GERD per capita of neighboring countries, such as Vietnam ($36), Singapore ($1804), Malaysia ($361), and Thailand ($111).

    Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of spending on healthcare R&D to address the needs of developing innovative therapeutic products in Indonesia.

    Methods: A decision tree model was developed by taking into account four stages of R&D: stage 1 from raw concept to feasibility, stage 2 from feasibility to development, stage 3 from development to early commercialization, and stage 4 from early to full commercialization. Considering a 3-year time horizon, a stage-dependent success rate was applied and analyses were conducted from a business perspective. Two scenarios were compared by assuming the government of Indonesia would increase GERD in health and medical sciences up to 2- and 3-times higher than the baseline (current situation) for the first and second scenario, respectively. Cost per number of innovative products in health and medical sciences was considered as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of different input parameters on the ICER.

    Results: There was a statistically significant association (P-value<0.05) between countries' GERD in medical and health sciences with the number of innovative products. We estimated the ICER would be $8.50 million and $2.04 million per innovative product for the first and second scenario, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed that the success rates in all stages and total GERD were the most influential parameters impacting the ICER.

    Conclusion: The result showed that there was an association between GERD in medical and health sciences with the number of innovative products. In addition, the second scenario would be more cost-effective than the first scenario.

  3. Alfiani F, Utami AM, Zakiyah N, Daud NAA, Suwantika AA, Puspitasari IM
    Int J Womens Health, 2025;17:639-649.
    PMID: 40070683 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S489159
    INTRODUCTION: Multiple micronutrient deficiencies might increase the adverse outcome during pregnancy and after birth. Considering the WHO recommendations since 2016 and scientific evidence from previous studies that multiple-micronutrient supplementation (MMS) is more effective than iron folic acid (IFA) in improving pregnant women's health, it is imperative to conduct an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of MMS compared with IFA.

    METHODS: We conducted a systematic review from PubMed and Scopus to identify the cost-effectiveness analyses of MMS compared to IFA for pregnant women up to January 2024. Data extraction included specific study characteristics, input parameters, cost elements, cost-effectiveness results, and key drivers of uncertainty. This systematic review adhered to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

    RESULTS: After removing 111 duplicates and following the screening process on the title and abstract of 1201 records, resulting in 125 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, a total of 5 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All included studies were from low- and middle-income countries and demonstrated that MMS compared to IFA for pregnant women is cost-effective and even very cost-effective in some countries. All included studies implemented cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and estimated its cost-effectiveness using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted. Results suggested that the transition from IFA to MMS was cost-effective. The range of ICER per DALY averted in this study is USD 3.62 to USD 1024, depending on the scenario. Overall, the main determinant influencing cost-effectiveness was the cost of MMS procurement.

    CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that transitioning from IFA to MMS in certain conditions has been proven cost-effective, emphasizing this intervention's economic viability. MMS price and micronutrient deficiency-related disease burden are important determinants in assessing cost-effectiveness.

    REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022319470.

  4. Teerawattananon Y, Dabak SV, Isaranuwatchai W, Lertwilairatanapong T, Shafie AA, Suwantika AA, et al.
    Int J Health Policy Manag, 2022 Dec 19;11(12):3141-3144.
    PMID: 35942957 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7281
    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.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links