Cost-utility analysis of using high-intensity statin among post-hospitalized acute coronary syndrome patients.

BACKGROUND: Post-hospitalized acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in Indonesia National Insurance does not pay for the use of high-intensity statin (HIS) for secondary prevention after ACS hospitalization. Moreover, a cost-utility analysis needs to be conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prescribing HIS and low-to-moderate-intensity statin (LMIS) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of long-term HIS treatment in post-hospitalized ACS patients in Indonesia compared to current practice. RESULTS: This study compared the economic outcomes of long-term HIS and LMIS in Indonesian post-hospitalized ACS patients. A lifetime Markov model predicted ACS-related events, costs, and QALY from a payer perspective. A systematic review estimated treatment-specific event probabilities, post-event survival, health-related quality of life, and Indonesia medical-care expenses from published sources. This study conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using 1000 independent Monte Carlo simulations and a series of one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses utilizing a tornado diagram. The economic evaluation model proved that intensive HIS treatment can increase per-patient QALYs and care expenditures compared to LMIS. The use of HIS among post-hospitalized ACS patients had ICER 31.843.492 IDR per QALY gained, below the Indonesia willingness-to-pay (WTP) for terminal disease and life-saving treatment. CONCLUSION: From the Indonesia payer perspective, using HIS for post-hospitalized ACS patients in Indonesia is cost-effective at 31.843.492 IDR per QALY gained.

Treatment seeking experiences of ACS patients in Yogyakarta, Indonesia during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

Delay in treatment seeking is recognized as a major contributor for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) mortality in Indonesia. Despite the significance of timely treatment, decline in admission and delay in presentation of patients with ACS were consistently reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. These suggested that treatment seeking performance of patients during the pandemic might be different from the previous period. This qualitative study aimed to explore treatment seeking behaviour, barriers in seeking medical treatment, and experiences of patients with ACS in Yogyakarta, Indonesia during COVID-19 pandemic. In depth-interviews were carried out with 30 patients, who were hospitalized with ACS at one of the three selected hospitals in Yogyakarta during the pandemic period. Thematic analysis was performed to create vital explanations for treatment seeking practices of patients with ACS during pandemic. Three significant themes were identified: treatment seeking decisions, barriers in seeking medical treatment during COVID-19, and experiencing both good and bad impression from entering and staying in the hospital. The intensity of ACS symptoms and fear of COVID-19 infection dominated the delay in seeking medical treatment. Strict safety measures, religious belief, and fear of ACS helped patients overcome barriers and seek medical treatment during pandemic. ACS patients also had convenient medical care during the pandemic and believed medical staff would provide excellent care to them. However, visit restriction policy could cause psychological discomfort. Increase awareness of ACS symptoms and the risk of delays ACS treatment are essential to support patients' decisions to seek medical helps in a timely manner at any situations including pandemic. Interventions aim at alleviating psychological distress should also be designed and implemented to improve treatment experiences of ACS patients, who sought medical treatment during the pandemic crisis.

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.

Does health economics research align with the disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa region? A systematic review of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Economic evaluation studies demonstrate the value of money in health interventions and enhance the efficiency of the healthcare system. Therefore, this study reviews published economic evaluation studies of public health interventions from 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and examines whether they addressed the region's major health problems. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were utilized to search for relevant articles published up to June 26, 2021. The reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 61 studies. Approximately half (28 studies; 46%) were conducted in Israel and Iran. The main areas of interest for economic evaluation studies were infectious diseases (21 studies; 34%), cancers (13 studies; 21%), and genetic disorders (nine studies; 15%). Five (8%), 39 (64%), 16 (26%), and one (2%) studies were classified as excellent, high, average, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of CHEERS checklist items reported was 80.8% (SD 14%). Reporting the structure and justification of the selected model was missed in 21 studies (37%), while price and conversion rates and the analytical methods were missed in 21 studies (34%). CONCLUSIONS: The quantity of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions in the MENA region remains low; however, the overall quality is high to excellent. There were obvious geographic gaps across countries regarding the number and quality of studies and gaps within countries concerning disease prioritization. The observed research output, however, did not reflect current and upcoming disease burden and risk factors trends in the MENA region.