OBJECTIVE: Globally, PE guidelines are followed to assist in optimization of costs and effectiveness of new health technologies to maximize health benefits. We aimed to compare PE guidelines in APAC countries with that in Europe, Canada, and US region (Group-1).

METHODS: We searched PE guidelines for 13 selected APAC countries (China, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea [SK], Iran, Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and India), US, Canada, and Europe using PubMed, ISPOR website, EUNetHTA guideline, and country-specific websites. The retrieved PE guidelines were analyzed and compared for following major parameters: (P1) economic modeling, (P2) systematic review of evidence, (P3) preference for effectiveness versus efficacy, (P4) total cost versus effectiveness (cost/effectiveness ratio) and (P5) portability of results.

RESULTS: PE guidelines of most APAC countries are consistent with that of Group-1, with few differences observed. P1 is a requirement for most APAC countries except SK and is in alignment with Group-1. P2 is a requirement for most APAC countries as well as Group-1. However, it is only recommended for Taiwan and not stated in PE guidelines of SK. P3 is not stated in PE guidelines for Japan, Malaysia, Israel, and SK, while it is recommended in Group-1. P4 is a requirement for most APAC countries PE guidelines; however, is not stated in Japan, SK, and Israel. P5 is not stated as a requirement for Japan, Malaysia, and SK; in contrary, it is required for Group-1 PE guidelines. Except for Australia which has a well-established HTA, most APAC countries have less established systems, while it is in development phase in India.

CONCLUSION: PE guidelines of APAC countries are fairly in alignment with that of US, Canada, and Europe. The adoption of HTA system in APAC countries has been slow, and its full potential in healthcare decision-making yet to be evaluated.