Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines: Malaysia
Country/Region: Malaysia
PE Guidelines
Pharmacoeconomic Guideline For Malaysia (March 2012)
Pdf in English
Pdf in English
PE Guidelines Source:
Ministry of Health of Malaysia
Information current as of Thursday, April 28, 2016
Key Features
| Key Features | |
|---|---|
| Type of Guidelines | PE Guidelines |
| Title and year of the document | Pharmacoeconomic Guideline For Malaysia 2012 |
| Affiliation of authors | PSD, MOH, MaHTAS, MySPOR, MPS,MUSC,UM,UKM,UKMMC, USM, UNU-IIGH, UiTM |
| Purpose of the document | A methodological guide to conduct pharmacoeconomic analysis in Malaysia. |
| Standard reporting format included | Yes |
| Disclosure | Yes |
| Target audience of funding/ author's interests | Both public and private payers, healthcare industries, clinicians, and research communities, accordingly. |
| Perspective | Provider or funder. Patient and societal perspective are encouraged |
| Indication | Indication(s) must be approved by DCA/reference country |
| Target population | Must be clearly stated. |
| Subgroup analysis | Yes, can be included when appropriate |
| Choice of comparator | To be compared against the most relevant alternatives for the proposed indication in the applied setting. Comparator(s) should not be a placebo but non-drug therapy can be used. The choice of comparator(s) should always be justified. |
| Time horizon | Should be long enough to capture all changes in cost(s) and outcome(s) of the intervention. |
| Assumptions required | Yes. Should be clearly stated. |
| Preferred analytical technique | CEA and CUA. Technique chosen should be justified clearly. |
| Costs to be included | All costs relevant to the chosen perspective (provider/funder). Societal cost is preferred in any analysis. |
| Source of costs | Local cost data in the applied setting. The source of cost data must be identified. |
| Modeling | Yes. Clearly detailed with maximum transparency. All assumptions should be explicitly stated. |
| Systematic review of evidences | Yes. Meta-analysis is encouraged. |
| Preference for effectiveness over efficacy | N/A |
| Preferred outcome measure | Should justify the selection. |
| Preferred method to derive utility | Should justify the selection. |
| Equity issues stated | N/A |
| Discounting costs | 3% (Sensitivity Analysis, 0 and 5%) |
| Discounting outcomes | 3% (Sensitivity Analysis, 0 and 5%) |
| Sensitivity analysis-parameters and range | All key uncertain parameters. Best and worst case scenario presented. |
| Sensitivity analysis-methods | One-way, multivariate analysis as deemed appropriate. |
| Presenting results | Aggregated and disaggregated form for cost(s) and outcome(s). |
| Incremental analysis | Yes |
| Total costs vs effectiveness (cost/effectiveness ratio) | Yes |
| Portability of results (Generalizability) | N/A |
| Financial impact analysis | Yes |
| Mandatory or recommended or voluntary | Voluntary for 2 years upon launch of the pharmacoeconomic guideline and mandatory thereafter. |
Acknowledgement: