Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: Funding sources and outcomes

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 330-333

  Garattini, Livio ^a   Koleva, Daniela ^a   Casadei, Gianluigi ^a  

^a MARIO NEGRI INST PHARMACOL RES   (Italy)

Author keywords

Costs and cost analysis; Drug therapy; Markov chain

Indexed keywords

COST ANALYSIS; COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS; FINANCIAL BACKING; FUNDING SOURCES; LIFETIME COSTS; LITERATURE SEARCH; MARKOV CHAIN; MARKOV MODEL; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENT;

COST ACCOUNTING; COSTS; DRUG THERAPY; INDUSTRY; MARKOV PROCESSES; SECURITY OF DATA;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; FUNDING; LIFESPAN; MODEL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; COST; DRUG SCREENING; ECONOMICS; PHARMACOECONOMICS; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DRUG EVALUATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, ECONOMIC;

EID: 78049440721     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000322     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bala MV, Mauskopf JA. Optimal assignment of treatments to health states using a Markov decision model. An introduction to basic concepts. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:345-354.
2. Banta HD, Andreasen PB. The political dimension in health care technology assessments programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:115-123.
3. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: Systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699-703.
4. Burls A, Sandercock J. How to make a compelling submission to NICE: Tips for sponsoring organizations. BMJ. 2003;327:1446-1448.
5. Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research- Implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's Report. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:328-330.
6. Dong FB, Sorensen SW, ManninenDL, et al. Cost effectiveness of ACE inhibitor treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1015-1027.
7. Garattini L, Casadei G. Health technology assessment: For whom the bell tolls? Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9:311-312.
8. Gerkens S, Nechelput M, Annemans L, et al.Ahealth economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PEG IFN a-2a and ribavirin in patientswith mild chronic hepatitis C. J Viral Hepat. 2007;14:523-536.
9. Iglehart JK. Priorizing Comparative-effectiveness research - IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:325-327.
10. Krimsky S.Conflict of Interest and Cost-effectiveness Analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1474-1475.
11. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167-1170.
12. OECD. Health update. No. 7. July 2009. http://www.oecd,org/ health/update (accessed July 16, 2009).
13. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1-158.
14. Steinbrook R. Controlling conflict of interest - Proposal from the Institute of Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2160-2163.
15. Volpp KG, Das A. Comparative effectiveness - Thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:331-333.