WHO guide on the economic evaluation of influenza vaccination

Influenza is responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality across the globe, with a large share of the total disease burden occurring in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). There have been relatively few economic evaluations assessing the value of seasonal influenza vaccination in LMICs. The purpose of this guide is to outline the key theoretical concepts and best practice in methodologies and to provide guidance on the economic evaluation of influenza vaccination in LMICs. It outlines many of the influenza vaccine‐specific challenges and should help to provide a framework for future evaluations in the area to build upon.     

Anticoagulation control of pharmacist-managed collaborative care versus usual care in Thailand

Objective There has been a lack of evidence of the effects of pharmacist-managed warfarin therapy (PMWT) in developing countries (e.g. Southeast Asian countries) where the patients?? characteristics, genetic make-up, clinical practice and healthcare system are different from the Western world. This study aimed to compare the anticoagulation control and clinical outcomes associated with warfarin therapy provided by PMWT to usual care (UC) in the Thai population. Setting A 1,000-bed tertiary-care hospital in Nakornratchasima province of Thailand. Method A quasi-experimental study comparing PMWT and UC in patients receiving long-term warfarin therapy. For PMWT group, clinical pharmacists optimised the warfarin therapy and suggested recommendations (e.g. dose adjustment, safer alternative drugs, and follow-up time) to physicians. The UC group received the standard care. Main outcome measure Time in therapeutic range (TTR), both actual- and expanded-TTR, bleeding and thromboembolic complications, and physician?? acceptance of pharmacist suggestions. Results Of 433 patients enrolled, 220 and 213 were in the PMWT and UC groups respectively. At baseline, patient??s characteristics of both groups were comparable. At the end of follow-up period, patients in the PMWT group had significantly higher actual-TTR (48.3% vs. 40.1%; P?<?0.001) and expanded-TTR (62.7% vs. 53.9%; P?<?0.001) compared to those in the UC group. Rates of major bleeding were 4.4 vs 4.5 events per 100 person-years for the PMWT and UC groups, respectively. Pharmacists performed 284 interventions with an acceptance rate of 80.3% from physicians. Conclusion Pharmacist-managed warfarin therapy resulted in a significantly better anticoagulation control. This study showed that a collaborative approach in anticoagulation management can be successfully implemented in a developing country. Implementation of such care model in other developing countries should be considered.     

Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter?

Objective: To test the association of clinical evidence type, efficacy-based or effectiveness-based (“E”), versus whether or not asthma interventions' cost-effectiveness findings are favorable. Data sources: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014. Study Selection: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, “E,” was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of “E.” Results and conclusions: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.     

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

The European Journal of Health Economics - Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health...     

Utilization review of concomitant use of potentially interacting drugs in Thai patients using warfarin therapy

PURPOSE: In Thailand, there has been no study determining the concomitant use of medications, known to potentially interact with warfarin, in patients receiving warfarin therapy. This paper examined the frequency of which specific interacting drugs were concomitantly used in warfarin users. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the database of warfarin outpatient medical records from a regional 756-bed hospital located in the north of Thailand. All patients receiving warfarin from 10 June 1999 to 4 August 2004 were reviewed to identify all drugs possessing interaction potential with warfarin. The potential of significant interactions were divided into high, moderate and low, according to the extent of evidence documented in textbooks and literature. RESULTS: Among 1093 patients receiving warfarin therapy, 914 (84%) patients received at least one potentially interacting drug and half of them (457 patients) received at least one drug with high potential for interaction. The most frequently concomitant drug that increased INR was acetaminophen (63%, 316/457). Propylthiouracil was the most frequently concomitant drug that decreased INR response (4%, 19/457), while diclofenac was the most frequently concomitant drug that increased bleeding risk (16%, 73/457). CONCLUSIONS: About a half of patients receiving warfarin therapy was prescribed concomitant drug(s) that has a high potential of interactions with warfarin. These patients should be closely monitored and counselled to watch for signs and symptoms of bleeding and thrombosis to avoid adverse events associated with drug interactions.