Limits...
Pharmacoeconomics and its implication on priority-setting for essential medicines in Tanzania: a systematic review.

Mori AT, Robberstad B - BMC Med Inform Decis Mak (2012)

Bottom Line: Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl and Cochrane databases were searched using "economic evaluation", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "cost-benefit analysis" AND "Tanzania" as search terms.The national essential medicine list and the other identified policy documents do not state the use of economic evaluation as one of the criteria which has influenced the listing of the drugs.Country specific pharmacoeconomic analyses are too scarce and inconsistently used to have had a significant influence on the selection of essential medicines in Tanzania.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, PO Box 7804, 5020 Bergen, Norway. pax_amani@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Due to escalating treatment costs, pharmacoeconomic analysis has been assigned a key role in the quest for increased efficiency in resource allocation for drug therapies in high-income countries. The extent to which pharmacoeconomic analysis is employed in the same role in low-income countries is less well established. This systematic review identifies and briefly describes pharmacoeconomic studies which have been conducted in Tanzania and further assesses their influence in the selection of essential medicines.

Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl and Cochrane databases were searched using "economic evaluation", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "cost-benefit analysis" AND "Tanzania" as search terms. We also scanned reference lists and searched in Google to identify other relevant articles. Only articles reporting full economic evaluations about drug therapies and vaccines conducted in Tanzania were included. The national essential medicine list and other relevant policy documents related to the identified articles were screened for information regarding the use of economic evaluation as a criterion for medicine selection.

Results: Twelve pharmacoeconomic studies which met our inclusion criteria were identified. Seven studies were on HIV/AIDS, malaria and diarrhoea, the three highest ranked diseases on the disease burden in Tanzania. Six studies were on preventive and treatment interventions targeting pregnant women and children under the age of five years. The national essential medicine list and the other identified policy documents do not state the use of economic evaluation as one of the criteria which has influenced the listing of the drugs.

Conclusion: Country specific pharmacoeconomic analyses are too scarce and inconsistently used to have had a significant influence on the selection of essential medicines in Tanzania. More studies are required to fill the existing gap and to explore whether decision-makers have the ability to interpret and utilise pharmacoeconomic evidence. Relevant health authorities in Tanzania should also consider how to apply pharmacoeconomic analyses more consistently in the future priority-setting decisions for selection of essential medicines.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3472274&req=5

Figure 1: Flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review.

Mentions: 396 articles were retrieved from various databases and other sources in which 72 were excluded because they were duplicate hits. The remaining 324 unique articles were screened by titles and abstracts after which 309 articles were excluded. Three articles out of the remaining 15 were excluded because one was a brief communication[17], the second was about a hypothetical malaria vaccine[18], and the third was a review study[19]. Therefore only 12 full articles qualified for the qualitative analysis[20-31] (Figure1) .


Pharmacoeconomics and its implication on priority-setting for essential medicines in Tanzania: a systematic review.

Mori AT, Robberstad B - BMC Med Inform Decis Mak (2012)

Flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3472274&req=5

Figure 1: Flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review.
Mentions: 396 articles were retrieved from various databases and other sources in which 72 were excluded because they were duplicate hits. The remaining 324 unique articles were screened by titles and abstracts after which 309 articles were excluded. Three articles out of the remaining 15 were excluded because one was a brief communication[17], the second was about a hypothetical malaria vaccine[18], and the third was a review study[19]. Therefore only 12 full articles qualified for the qualitative analysis[20-31] (Figure1) .

Bottom Line: Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl and Cochrane databases were searched using "economic evaluation", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "cost-benefit analysis" AND "Tanzania" as search terms.The national essential medicine list and the other identified policy documents do not state the use of economic evaluation as one of the criteria which has influenced the listing of the drugs.Country specific pharmacoeconomic analyses are too scarce and inconsistently used to have had a significant influence on the selection of essential medicines in Tanzania.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, PO Box 7804, 5020 Bergen, Norway. pax_amani@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Due to escalating treatment costs, pharmacoeconomic analysis has been assigned a key role in the quest for increased efficiency in resource allocation for drug therapies in high-income countries. The extent to which pharmacoeconomic analysis is employed in the same role in low-income countries is less well established. This systematic review identifies and briefly describes pharmacoeconomic studies which have been conducted in Tanzania and further assesses their influence in the selection of essential medicines.

Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl and Cochrane databases were searched using "economic evaluation", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "cost-benefit analysis" AND "Tanzania" as search terms. We also scanned reference lists and searched in Google to identify other relevant articles. Only articles reporting full economic evaluations about drug therapies and vaccines conducted in Tanzania were included. The national essential medicine list and other relevant policy documents related to the identified articles were screened for information regarding the use of economic evaluation as a criterion for medicine selection.

Results: Twelve pharmacoeconomic studies which met our inclusion criteria were identified. Seven studies were on HIV/AIDS, malaria and diarrhoea, the three highest ranked diseases on the disease burden in Tanzania. Six studies were on preventive and treatment interventions targeting pregnant women and children under the age of five years. The national essential medicine list and the other identified policy documents do not state the use of economic evaluation as one of the criteria which has influenced the listing of the drugs.

Conclusion: Country specific pharmacoeconomic analyses are too scarce and inconsistently used to have had a significant influence on the selection of essential medicines in Tanzania. More studies are required to fill the existing gap and to explore whether decision-makers have the ability to interpret and utilise pharmacoeconomic evidence. Relevant health authorities in Tanzania should also consider how to apply pharmacoeconomic analyses more consistently in the future priority-setting decisions for selection of essential medicines.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus