Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the Italian regulatory context: A quali-quantitative analysis of pricing and reimbursement dossiers;La valutazione farmacoeconomica nel contesto regolatorio italiano: Analisi quali-quantitativa dei dossier di richiesta del prezzo e della rimborsabilità

PharmacoEconomics - Italian Research Articles

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 59-75

  Russo, Pierluigi ^a  

^a ITALIAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTI HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENT; HEMATOLOGIC AGENT; IMMUNOMODULATING AGENT;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; ITALY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT;

EID: 48749108888     PISSN: 15909158     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/bf03320643     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 716-21
2. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972; 7: 118-33
3. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270: 2093-5
4. Jefferson T, Smith R, Yee Y, et al. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submission. JAMA 1996; 260: 275-7
5. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275-83
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal November 2007. UK: National Health Service, 2007
7. Pharmaceutical benefits pricing authority. Policies, procedures and methods used in the pricing of pharmaceutical products. Australia: PBPA, 2006
8. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Cost-Effectiveness, Policy-Making and Regulation. In: Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2004
9. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the national institute for clinical excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002; 360:711-5
10. Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1516-2211.
11. Messori A, D'Alessandro P, Di Giorgio D, Tosolini F. Problems in Pharmacoeconomic Analyses (reply to editor). JAMA 2000: 284: 1923
12. Messori A, D'Alessandro P, Di Giorgio D, Tosolini F. Problems in Pharmacoeconomic Analyses (reply to editor). JAMA 2000: 284: 1923
13. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 369-90
14. Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med 1996; 15: 1447-58
15. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1-134
16. Malone DC. Using indirect comparisons in pharmacoeconomic studies: time for implementation. Clin Ther 2007; 29: 2454-5
17. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24: 1-19
18. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000; 283: 2116-21
19. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.1) December 2006. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing: Commonwealth of Australia, 2006
20. Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM on behalf of the Euromet group. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. Health Policy 2000; 52: 179-92
21. Freemantle N, Mason J. Publication bias in clinical trials and economic analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 10-6
22. EFPIA (The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations). The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures. EFPIA: 2007 update
23. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: iii-iv, 1-192
24. Cornago D, Li Bassi L, De Compadri P, Garattini L. Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: a critical review of the literature. Eur J Health Econ 2007; 8: 89-95
25. Detsky AS, Laupacis A. Relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis to clinicians and policy makers. JAMA 2007; 298: 221-4
26. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 131-48
27. Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses, making them transparent, making them credible. JAMA 2000; 283: 2158-60
28. Lucioni C, Ravasio R. Come valutare i risultati di uno studio farmacoeconomico? Pharmacoeconomics-Italian Research Articles 2004; 6: 121-30
29. European value of a quality adjusted life year [online] (URL: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq; accesso verificato al febbraio 2008)
30. Brouwer W, van Exel J, Baker R, Donaldson C. The new myth, the social value of the QALY. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 1-4
31. Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008; 336: 251-4
32. Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contraindications. BMJ 2002; 325: 891-4
33. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, et al. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999; 282: 1453-7
34. Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1362-5
35. Sassi F. Politiche editoriali per la valutazione economica: un passo avanti, due passi indietro? Non solo conflitto di interesse. Mecosan 1995; 4: 50-3
36. Attanasio E. Politiche editoriali per la valutazione economica: un passo avanti, due indietro? Gli interessi fanno parte del gioco. Mecosan 1995; 4: 59-60
37. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Independent research on drugs funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (URL: http://www.agenziafarmaco.it/ accesso verificato al febbraio 2008)
38. Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money. NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005; 294: 2618-22
39. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004; 329: 972-5
40. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Criteri per l'attribuzione del grado di innovazione terapeutica dei nuovi farmaci. (URL: http://www.agenziafarmaco.it/ allegati/documento_integrale.pdf accesso verificato al febbraio 2008)
41. Garattini L, Cornago D, De Compadri P. Pricing and reimbursement of in-patent drugs in seven European countries: a comparative analysis. Health Policy 2007; 82: 330-9
42. Collier J. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. Proposals for a new drug pricing mechanism in the NHS are welcomed. BMJ 2007; 334: 435-6