Methodological Approaches to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Saudi Arabia: What Can We Learn? A Systematic Review. Issue 1 (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Maraiki, Fatma; Bazarbashi, Shouki; Scuffham, Paul; Tuffaha, Haitham
• Is Part Of: MDM policy & practice. Volume 7:Issue 1(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: cost-effectiveness analysis -- economic evaluation -- Saudi Arabia -- systematic review -- value assessment; Medicine -- Decision making -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Decision making; Decision Making; Clinical Medicine; Health Policy; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.075
• DOI: 10.1177/23814683221086869
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2381-4683

Abstract

Objective: The recent establishment of the health technology assessment (HTA) entity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has resulted in increased interest in economic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical approaches used in published economic evaluations and the limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies that could affect the ability to perform economic evaluations in the KSA. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations performed for the KSA over the past 10 years. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed. A CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. Reported limitations were classified into domains including the definition of perspectives, identification of comparators, estimation of costs and resources, and use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold. Results: Twelve evaluations were identified; most involved cost-effectiveness analysis (92%). Missing and unclear data were found within the CHEERS criteria. Regardless of the perspective used, most described the perspective as an "institutional" perspective (70%) and almost half were reclassified by the current reviewer (42%). Most did not clearly state the comparator (83%), and published model comparators were commonly used (50%). Resource estimation was mostly performed by the authors of the respective studies (67%), and costs were mostly obtained from hospital institutional data (75%). The lack of an established threshold for the country-specific willingness to pay was observed in 50% of the analyses. Conclusions: Economic evaluations from the KSA are limited. Capacity building and country-specific HTA guidelines could improve the quality of evaluations to better inform decision making. Highlights: Economic analysis of health technology should follow standard guidelines. Unfortunately, these guides are often underutilized, and our findings identify considerable missing, not clearly stated, or incomplete data within the analyses, which can weaken the impact of the recommendations. The limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies emphasize the suboptimal quality of the reporting. A lack of data was frequently identified and resulted in using "institutional" practice as a major source of data input for the analyses. In light of the call for the establishment of an HTA entity in the KSA, framing a standard analytic approach when conducting economic evaluations will support HTA in informing resource allocation decisions. We hope that our findings highlight the need for country-specific guidance to improve practice and enhance future research.