Differences among formulary submission guidelines: Implications for health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 261-270

  Mauskopf, Josephine ^a   Walter, Jeffrey ^a   Birt, Julie ^b   Bowman, Lee ^b   Copley Merriman, Catherine ^a   Drummond, Michael ^c  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Data synthesis; Evidence; Formulary submission guidelines; Harmonization; Health technology assessment; International guidelines

Indexed keywords

DATA SYNTHESIS; EVIDENCE; FORMULARY SUBMISSION GUIDELINES; HARMONIZATION; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES;

RATING; TECHNOLOGY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

HEALTH;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

AUSTRALIA; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; EUROPE; FORMULARIES AS TOPIC; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; NORTH AMERICA; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 80155176212     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000274     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP format for formulary submissions, version 3.0. 2009. http://www.amcp.org/amcp. ark?p=0F6E1295 (accessed June 30, 2010).
2. Andradas E, Blasco JA, Valentin B, Lopez Pedraza MJ, Gracia FJ. Defining products for a new health technology assessment agency in Madrid, Spain: A survey of decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:60-69.
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH guidelines for the evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 3rd ed. 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
4. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common drug review: Insulin glargine-CEDAC final recommendation. October 25, 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr-complete-Lantus-Oct25-06.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common drug review: Ustekinumab-CEDAC final recommendation. June 17, 2009. http://www.cadth.ca/ media/cdr/complete/cdr-complete-Stelara-June-17-2009.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
6. Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L, Merlo F, Mantovani L. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: Recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:189-201.
7. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: A comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:1437-1443.
8. College des Economistes de la Sante. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. 2004. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/ source/France-Guidelines-HE-Evaluation.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
9. College voor zorgverzekeringen. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research (Netherlands), updated version. 2006. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/ HTAGuidelines NLupdated2006.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
10. Conjoint Committee for New Drugs Evaluation. Evaluation of new drugs in Spain. 2008. http://www.osasun. ejgv. euskadi.net/r52-478/es/contenidos/ informacion/innovaciones-terap/es-1221/adjuntos/PNT-nuevos-med-b.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
11. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244-258.
12. Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR, Garber AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:1323-1325.
13. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. EU-netHTA joint action-new phase in EUnetHTA development. 2010. http://www.eunethta.net/Public/ Home/ (accessed June 29, 2010).
14. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0 (Work Package 4). 2008. http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP4/Final%20Deliverables/ HTA%20Core%20Model%20for% 20Medical%20and%20Surgical%20Interventions%201%200r. pdf (accessed July 20, 2010).
15. Graf von der Schulenberg JM, Greiner W, Jost F, et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: Third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health. 2008;11:539-544.
16. Hutton J, Trueman P, Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:511-517.
17. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care]. General methods. 2008. http://www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG-General-methods-V-3-0.pdf (accessed July 20, 2010).
18. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care]. IQWiG methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system, version 1.1. 2008. http://www.iqwig.de/download/ 08-01-24-Draft-Methods-of-the-Relation-of-Benefits-to-Costs-Version-1-0.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
19. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. 2010. http://www.ispor.org/ peguidelines/index.asp (accessed June 30, 2010).
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of long-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of diabetes-insulin glargine. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 53. December 2002. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11482/32518/32518.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
21. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Single technology appraisal specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/E29/DF/ SpecificationForManufacturerSponsorSubmissionof EvidenceDraft.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ustekinumab for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 180. September 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/ live/12235/45461/45461.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
24. Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Jonsson B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71-78.
25. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, version 4.2. 2007. http://www.health.gov. au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ pbacguidelines-index (accessed June 30, 2010).
26. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: Insulin glargine. March 2006. http://www.health. gov. au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/1975B80032DC1 3C8CA25719C00244A7D/$File/Insulin- glargine.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
27. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: Ustekinumab. November 2009. http://www.health. gov. au/internet/main/publishing. nsf/Content/83DE850311C895EFCA2576D20081008E/$File/Ustekinumab%20112009. pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
28. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Scottish Medicines Consortium guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form. 2007. http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/smc/servlet/controller?p-service=Content. show&p-applic=CCC&pContentID=33 (accessed June 30, 2010).
29. Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. 2003. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/Guidelines-in-Sweden.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
30. Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Guidelines for companies. 2008. http://www.tlv. se/Upload/English/Guidelinesfor-Companies.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).
31. WellPoint. Health technology assessment guidelines. 2008. https://www.wellpointnextrx.com/shared/noapplication/f1/s0/t0/pw-ad080614.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).