Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Evaluación económica de medicamentos: experiencias y vías de avance

Gaceta Sanitaria

Ediciones Doyma, S.L.

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 26

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments.

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis.

        The decisions made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) give rise to two questions: how is cost-effectiveness evidence used to make judgements about the 'value for money' of health technologies? And how are factors other than cost-effectiveness taken into account? The aim of this paper is to explore NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold(s) and the tradeoffs between cost effectiveness and other factors apparent in its decisions. Binary choice analysis is used to reveal the preferences of NICE and to consider the consistency of its decisions. For each decision to accept or reject a technology, explanatory variables include: the cost per life year or per QALY gained; uncertainty regarding cost effectiveness; the net cost to the NHS; the burden of disease; the availability (or not) of alternative treatments; and specific factors indicated by NICE. Results support the broad notion of a threshold, where the probability of rejection increases as the cost per QALY increases. Cost effectiveness, together with uncertainty and the burden of disease, explain NICE decisions better than cost effectiveness alone. The results suggest a threshold somewhat higher than NICEs stated 'range of acceptable cost effectiveness' of pound 20,000-30,000 British pounds per QALY--although the exact meaning of a 'range' in this context remains unclear. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

          To investigate if published studies tend to report favourable cost effectiveness ratios (below 20,000 dollars, 50,000 dollars, and 100,000 dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and evaluate study characteristics associated with this phenomenon. Systematic review. Studies reviewed 494 English language studies measuring health effects in QALYs published up to December 2001 identified using Medline, HealthSTAR, CancerLit, Current Content, and EconLit databases. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios measured in dollars set to the year of publication. Approximately half the reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (712 of 1433) were below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report cost effectiveness ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.3), 50,000 dollars/QALY (3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), and 100,000 dollars/QALY (3.3, 1.6 to 6.8). Studies of higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91) and those conducted in Europe (0.59, 0.33 to 1.1) and the United States (0.44, 0.26 to 0.76) rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Most published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            S0213-91112008000400009

            http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

            Public health

            Comments

            Comment on this article