Comparing methods for full versus single technology appraisal: A case study of docetaxel and paclitaxel for early breast cancer

Health Policy

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 389-400

  Kaltenthaler, Eva ^a   Tappenden, Paul ^a   Booth, Andrew ^a   Akehurst, Ron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Documentary analysis; HTA; NICE; Rapid appraisal; Taxanes

Indexed keywords

ANTHRACYCLINE; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; EPIRUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; PACLITAXEL;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BREAST CANCER; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORT; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, PHYTOGENIC; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PACLITAXEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TAXOIDS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 47849085787     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Milne R. Rapid HTA: supply and demand in the English NHS. Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care 18 (2002) [abstract no. 21]
2. Davies E., and Littlejohns P. Views of Directors of Public Health about NICE Appraisal Guidance: results of a postal survey. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. J Public Health Med 24 4 (2002) 319-325
3. May C. Mobilising modern facts: health technology assessment and the politics of evidence. Sociol Health Illness 28 5 (2006) 513-532
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Technology Appraisal Process, http://www.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=201971; April 2004.
5. Technology Appraisal Programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A review by WHO. World Health Organisation, Ref. No.: 5045738. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2003.
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Single Technology Appraisal Process, http://www.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=316193; September 2006.
7. Buxton MJ, Akehurst R. How NICE is the UK's fast-track system? http://www.scripmag.com; March 2006. pp. 24-25.
8. Miller F.A., and Alvarado K. Incorporating documents into qualitative nursing research. J Nurs Scholarship 37 4 (2005) 348-353
9. Appleton J.V., and Cowley S. Analysing clinical practice guidelines. A method of documentary analysis. J Adv Nurs 25 5 (1997) 1008-1017
10. Elston J., and Fulop N. Perceptions of partnership. A documentary analysis of Health Improvement Programmes. Public Health -Lond- Soc Public Health 116 4 (2002) 207-213
11. Chilcott J, Lloyd Jones M, Wilkinson A Docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer: a single technology appraisal, http://guidance.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=309588; 2006.
12. Griffin S, Dunn G, Palmer S, Macfarlane K, Brent S, Dyker A, et al. The use of paclitaxel in the management of early stage breast cancer, http://guidance.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=309152; 2006.
13. Ward S.E., Simpson E., Davis S., Hind D., Rees A., and Wilkinson A. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Health Technol Assess 11 (2007) 40
14. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. Development of a review protocol, http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm.
15. Sonnenberg F.A., and Beck J.R. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decision Making 13 4 (1993) 322-338
16. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods for Technology Appraisal, http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201973; April 2004.
17. Jørgensen A.W., Hilden J., and Gøtzsche P.C. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333 (2006) 782
18. Burls A., and Sandercock J. How to make a compelling submission to NICE: tips for sponsoring organisations. BMJ 327 7429 (2003) 1446-1448
19. Burke K. NICE accuses drug companies of withholding data. BMJ 324 7333 (2002) 320
20. Brain E.G.C., Bachelot T., Serin D., Kirscher S., Graic Y., Eymard J.-C., et al. Life-threatening sepsis associated with adjuvant doxorubicin plus docetaxel for intermediate-risk breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 293 (2005) 2367-2371
21. Ferner R.E., and McDowell S.E. How NICE may be outflanked. BMJ 332 7552 (2006) 1268-1271
22. Wonder M.J., Neville A.M., and Parsons R. Are Australians able to access new medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in a more or less timely manner? An analysis of pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee recommendations, 1999-2003. Value Health 9 4 (2006) 205-212
23. McMahon M., Morgan S., and Mitton C. The common drug review: A NICE start for Canada?. Health Policy 77 (2006) 339-351
24. Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/smc/controller?p_service=Content.show&p_applic=CCC&pContentID=25&p_service=Content.show#10) [accessed 07.02.08].
25. Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de gezondheidszorg (KCE) 2006. KCE reports 28A (D2006/10.273/10), http://kce.fgov.be/index_en.aspx?)ID=0&SGREF=5215&CREF=9313.