Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions

Value in Health

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 954-960

  Kleijnen, Sarah ^a,b   George, Elisabeth ^c   Goulden, Scott ^c   D'Andon, Anne ^d   Vitré, Pauline ^d   Osiska, Boguslawa ^e   Rdzany, Rafal ^e   Thirstrup, Steffen ^f   Corbacho, Belen ^g   Nagy, Bence Z ^h   Leufkens, Hubert G ^b   De Boer, Anthonius ^b   Goettsch, Wim G ^a,b  

^a Hulpmiddelen Informatie Project   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^d Ancien Délégué Général de la Fédération de l'Hospitalisation Privée   (France)

^e Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland   (Poland)

^f Institute for Rational Pharmacotherapy   (Denmark)

^g Andalusian HTA Agency   (Spain)

^h Hungarian National Institute for Quality and Organizational Development   (Hungary)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness; health technology assessment; pharmaceuticals; policy; reimbursement

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DATA MINING; EUROPE; HUMANS; MEDICATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS;

EID: 84866389877     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. C. Sorenson Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 91 2010 1 14
2. High Level Pharmaceutical Forum Core principles on relative effectiveness http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/docs/rea-principles-en.pdf 2008 [Accessed December 5, 2010]
3. H.G. Eichler, B. Bloechl-Daum, E. Abadie Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers Nat Rev Drug Discov 9 2010 277 291
4. B. Jönsson Relative effectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market Eur J Health Eco 12 2011 97 102
5. R.J. Temple A regulatory authority's opinion about surrogate endpoints W.S. Nimmo, G.T. Tucker, Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation 1995 Wiley New York
6. P. Kleist Composite endpoints for clinical trials: current perspectives Int J Pharmaceut Med 21 2007 187 198
7. K. Chalkidou, S. Tunis, R. Lopert Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries Milbank Q 87 2009 339 367
8. A.R. Levy, C. Mitton, K.M. Johnston International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US Pharmacoeconomics 28 2010 813 830
9. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Version 4.3 2008 Commonwealth of Australia Canberra, Canada
10. F.M. Clement, A. Harris, J.J. Li Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada JAMA 302 2009 1437 1443
11. J. Cohen, L. Faden, S. Predaris, B. Young Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison Eur J Health Econ 8 2007 253 266
12. S.G. Morgan, M. McMahon, C. Mitton Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom Health Aff (Millwood) 25 2006 337 347
13. A. Zentner, M. Velasco-Garrido, R. Busse Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals GMS Health Technol Assess 1 2005 1 12
14. N.H. Goldberg, S. Schneeweiss, M.K. Kowal Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States JAMA 305 2011 1786 1789
15. J.C. van Luijn, F.W. Gribnau, H.G. Leufkens Availability of comparative trials for the assessment of new medicines in the European Union at the moment of market authorization Br J Clin Pharmacol 63 2007 159 162
16. Public Law No: 111-5. H.R. 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Barack Obama on 2/17/2009.
17. L. Manchikanti, F.J. Falco, M.V. Boswell, J.A. Hirsch Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research, Part I: basic considerations Pain Phys 13 2010 E23 E54
18. P. Sullivan, D. Goldmann The promise of comparative effectiveness research J Am Med Assoc 305 2011 400 401
19. G. Gartlehner, C.G. Moore Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 2008 170 177
20. H.C. Bucher, G.H. Guyatt, L.E. Griffith, S.D. Walter The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Clin Epidemiol 50 1997 683 691
21. F. Song, D.G. Altman, A.M. Glenny, J.J. Deeks Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses BMJ 326 2003 472
22. F. Song, Y.K. Loke, T. Walsh Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews BMJ 338 2009 b1147
23. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Report of the Indirect Comparisons Working Group to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: assessing indirect comparisons http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/B11E8EF19B358E39CA25754B000A9C07/$File/ ICWG%20Report%20FINAL2.pdf 2009 [Accessed January 14, 2011]
24. G.A. Wells, S.A. Sultan, L. Chen Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis 2009 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Ottawa, Ontario, Canada