Our results should be viewed as an initial step in a multi-stakeholder dialogue on HTA implementation. Each MENA country should develop its context-specific HTA roadmap, as such roadmaps are not transferable without taking into account country size, economic status, public health priorities and adopted systems of health care financing.

No abstract

Objective To describe the establishment of, and assess the implementation of, a hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) program in a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan. Methods This is a cross-sectional assessment study of the HTA program from 2008 to 2018. We used an indicator-based assessment that included structural, process, and outcome indicators. Structural indicators measured the program's enablers. Process indicators measured activities and outputs, whereas outcome indicators measured the program impact. A data collection form was prepared to collect data related to each indicator. Results The program met its core structural and process indicators. The Center for Drug Policy and Technology Assessment was established as an organizational entity to conduct assessments. A functional decision-making entity is available. There are competent pharmacists to conduct assessments, including economic evaluation and decision analytical modeling. There is a structured capacity building program that has been implemented within the last 5 years. Specific submission, assessment, and appraisal processes were established and implemented. Reference methodological guidelines for efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness assessments were developed and used by assessors. Thirty-one HTA reports were produced from 2012 to 2018 with a 100 percent utilization rate. Twenty-three medications were listed under restriction, and eight were rejected. The prices of twenty-one medications out of the twenty-three listed medications were reduced based on the HTA assessment results. Conclusion The HTA program at the King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) in Jordan is functional, is effective with a high utilization rate of produced assessments, and is having a positive impact on price reductions.

Background Despite the demonstrated efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim-aafi (Nivestim™), few studies have compared its use in real-life clinical practice to the originator filgrastim (Neupogen™). Objectives This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of filgrastim and filgrastim-aafi for the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced-febrile neutropenia in the real-life setting. Patients and methods A retrospective cohort study included all adult cancer patients at the King Hussein Cancer Centre requiring primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia between 2014 and 2016. Two cohorts were selected: patients who received filgrastim and those who received filgrastim-aafi. The primary endpoint was the incidence of febrile neutropenia; the secondary endpoints were the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), hospital admissions due to febrile neutropenia, and the mean length of hospitalization. Chi-squared tests were performed to evaluate differences between groups. Logistic regression was conducted to adjust for confounding factors. Results A total of 268 patients were identified, with 88 in the filgrastim cohort and 180 in the filgrastim-aafi cohort; 64%were females. The mean age was 47 (±15) years. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 21.6% in the filgrastim cohort and 15% in the filgrastim-aafi cohort (P = 0.179). No statistically significant differences were detected in the incidence of hospital admission (P = 0.551) or ADRs (P = 0.623) between the two cohorts. Upon adjusting for the confounding factors, results remained statistically insignificant. Conclusion Filgrastim and filgrastim-aafi had comparable effectiveness and safety as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapyinduced febrile neutropenia. More extensive prospective studies with additional insight on the cost implications are required.

No abstract