Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534233›Full record

ArticleGlobal journal on quality and safety in healthcare2024

National Recommendations for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations Reporting for Reimbursement and Procurement of New Pharmaceutical Applications in Egypt.

Mary Gamal, Amal Samir Sedrak, Gihan Hamdy Elsisi, Ahmed Elagamy, Ahmed Seyam, Mariam Eldebeiky, Randa Eldessoki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mary GamalHealth Technology Assessment Department, Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and Management of Medical Technology (UPA), Cairo, Egypt.
Amal Samir SedrakHealth Technology Assessment Department, Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and Management of Medical Technology (UPA), Cairo, Egypt.
Gihan Hamdy ElsisiHTA Office, LLC, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2917-9388
Ahmed ElagamyHealth Technology Assessment Department, Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and Management of Medical Technology (UPA), Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed SeyamUniversal Health Insurance Authority, Cairo, Egypt.
Mariam EldebeikyHealth Technology Assessment Department, Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and Management of Medical Technology (UPA), Cairo, Egypt.
Randa EldessokiPharmacoeconomic Committee, Egyptian Drug Authority, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To improve resource allocation within our healthcare system, the Egyptian Authority for Unified Procurement, Medical Supply and the Management of Medical Technology (UPA) and Universal Health Insurance Authority (UHIA) established a joint economic evaluation process to support UHIA reimbursement decisions and UPA procurement decisions. The main objective of this study is to describe the developed national pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Egypt, especially for reimbursement and procurement for new pharmaceuticals. Methods: A focus group was formed as a national initiative activity by governmental authorities in Egypt. The aim of this focus group was to develop national pharmacoeconomic guidelines for the evaluation of innovative and high-budget pharmaceutical products. This group consisted of various stakeholders with experience in health economics, outcomes research, public health, and pharmacy practice. To develop our national pharmacoeconomic guidelines, three steps were taken. First, the focus group reviewed the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) methods for health economic evaluations for new pharmaceuticals as well as the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Format for Formulary Submissions. Second, the focus group used the EUnetHTA guideline as a reference and adapted it to our local context. The focus group added the value assessment component, using the CADTH and AMCP guidelines. Third, the focus group collected input and feedback from key stakeholders through a focus group by using the quasi-Delphi panel approach. Results: The results of the focus group are a main structure of national pharmacoeconomic guidelines for the evaluation of innovative and high-budget pharmaceutical products, consisting of seven main topics. Conclusion: Economic evaluation is a core element of Health Technology Assessment, (HTA); therefore, the UHIA and UPA were encouraged to produce unified joint pharmacoeconomic guidelines for innovative products as an initial step in their commitment to implement the use of HTA in decision-making. This standardization of guidelines not only ensures transparency but also guarantees an accurate and transparent process to support evidence-based decision-making. These guidelines are expected to help decision-makers improve their process and attain better health outcomes for Egyptian patients.

Indexed as

Egyptnational recommendationspharmacoeconomic evaluationsreimbursement

Identifiers

PMID39534233
PMCPMC11554400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.