Search

The Tunisian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body, INEAS, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of vemurafenib in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. The objective of this analysis was to enable the use of value-based pricing as a new approach to price negotiation. This study was part of a broader HTA report that was prepared in response to a joint request from the regulatory authorities and the CNAM, Tunisia's compulsory insurance scheme. Our analysis was based on a probabilistic Markov cohort model that calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with vemurafenib compared to the standard of care from a public payer perspective. The CEA indicated that vemurafenib provides a gain of 0.38 life years (1.78 vs. 1.4) for an incremental cost of USD 101,106.62 from the perspective of the main public payer (CNAM). This study revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 163,311.40 USD/QALY and 163,911.46 USD/QALY, respectively, from the CNAM and public health facilities' perspectives. Vemurafenib cannot be considered cost-effective in terms of what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness to pay (WTP) in Tunisia. A significant price reduction would be necessary to bring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to an acceptable level., Competing Interests: Conflicts of InterestThe authors state that they had no competing conflicts of interest while working on this project. NS contributed to this project as part of her work when she was employed by IECS. Currently she is employed by Novartis. Her current employment has no influence on her previous contribution to this project., (© 2024 by the authors.)

Background: Breast cancer is a common disease in Tunisia and is associated with high mortality rates. The "Instance Nationale de l'Evaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé" (INEAS) and the Tunisian Society of Oncology decided to develop practice guidelines on the subject. While the development of de novo guidelines on breast cancer screening is a demanding process, guideline adaptation appears more appropriate and context sensitive. The objective of this paper is to describe the adaptation process of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis to the Tunisian setting in terms of the methodological process, contextual differences between the source and adoloped guideline, and changes in the recommendations., Methods: We used the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology to prioritize the topic, select the source guideline, and prioritize the questions and the outcomes. Once the source guideline was selected-the European Breast Cancer Guidelines-the European Commission´s Joint Research Centre shared with the project team in Tunisia all relevant documents and files. In parallel, the project team searched for local studies on the disease prevalence, associated outcomes' baseline risks, patients' values and preferences, cost, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility. Then, the adoloping panel reviewed the GRADE evidence tables and the Evidence to Decision tables and discussed whether their own judgments were consistent with those from the source guideline or not. They based their judgments on the evidence on health effects, the contextual evidence, and their own experiences., Results: The most relevant contextual differences between the source and adoloped guidelines were related to the perspective, scope, prioritized questions, rating of outcome importance, baseline risks, and indirectness of the evidence. The ADOLOPMENT process resulted in keeping 5 out of 6 recommendations unmodified. One recommendation addressing "screening versus no screening with ultrasound in women with high breast density on mammography screening" was modified from 'conditional against' to 'conditional for either' due to more favorable ratings by the adoloping panel in terms of equity and feasibility., Conclusion: This process illustrates both the feasibility of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach and the importance of consideration of contextual evidence. It also highlights the value of collaboration with the organization that developed the source guideline.

Objectives: Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a major public health issue. In a context of limited diagnostic capacity with the reference technique (real-time RT-PCR), many manufacturers have developed rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Although very promising in theory, these tests have raised many questions. This article is a rapid review that synthesizes data regarding different types of available RDTs, their performance, their limits and their potential indications in Tunisia as proposed by a multidisciplinary group of experts., Methods: A literature review was carried out on the websites of international organizations, governmental bodies and on INAHTA database, completed by a search of relevant scientific articles up to 1 June 2020. The synthesis of the data was submitted to a panel of experts to propose recommendations for the Tunisian context., Results: RDTs based on the detection of antigens and antibodies have sensitivity and specificity related issues. Few validation reports are published in the scientific literature. Pending more evidence on their performance and validity, several international organizations recommend their use only for research purposes. TDRs based on antibody detection are not appropriate for the early diagnosis of COVID-19. However, validated and specific tests could provide complementary diagnostic information to reference tests., Conclusion: Pending further evidence, the panel recommends the use of RDTs mainly for research purposes at the community level.

Objectives: Industries have made claims on the effectiveness of a disinfection procedure in reducing COVID-19 transmission. This procedure is usually performed by automated dispersion of disinfectant on individuals when they go through a booth. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report is a systematic review that synthesizes the evidence on the efficacy and safety of using these booths and provides recommendations to the Ministry of Health to facilitate decision-making regarding the relevance of using this technology., Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using Pubmed, Web of Science, INAHTA and GIN databases, from inception to June 4, 2020. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies then extracted and synthesized the evidence. The synthesis was submitted to a multidisciplinary group of experts to provide recommendations., Results: Two scientific papers and a Malaysian HTA report were included in data synthesis. In light of the resources consulted, spraying disinfectants on humans in booths is not effective and can be toxic. Disinfectants are intended for use on surfaces, not on living tissue and spraying disinfectants on the outside of the body does not kill the virus inside an infected person's body. Furthermore, this procedure may increase the risk of neglecting other effective measures., Conclusion: It is recommended to prohibit the use of disinfection booths in all structures.