Cost-effectiveness of duodenal ulcer treatment

Culyer, Anthony J.; Maynard, Alan

doi:10.1016/0160-7995(81)90003-4

Cited by 27 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…sorts of medical technologies and health care services (e.g. Culyer and Maynard, 1981), used in evaluating health care outcomes and comparing them to their costs.…”

Section: The Rand Corporation and Its Sponsor The Ford Foundation: Imentioning

confidence: 99%

The Economics of Health and Health Care

Folland¹,

Goodman²,

Stano³

2016

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing a doctoral thesis is a hard and challenging experience, particularly because it is something that develops over the course of quite a long period of time, in which many personal and professional incidents may inadvertently happen. Especially when you do it at the same time you juggle a working career, as was my case. For both professional and personal reasons, I have many people to thank. First and foremost I have to thank my supervisor, Nuno Sousa Pereira, not only for his supervision but also for his friendship in the course of these years, and very particularly for always believing in me, ever since I met him. For similar reasons, I also have to single out Elvira Silva amongst all of my PhD teachers, for her constant moral support and availability to share her professional opinion in a great deal of matters. I would also like to thank Manuel Mota Freitas Martins, for his support as my tutor for the curricular part of the PhD program. A special thanks goes to all of the people who work with me every day, in my teaching activities, for a lot of the times allowing me to give priority to my PhD schedule. I specially thank Pedro Duarte Silva and Américo Mendes for all the support. This thesis also benefitted considerably from the comments of Roger Backhouse,

show abstract

“…sorts of medical technologies and health care services (e.g. Culyer and Maynard, 1981), used in evaluating health care outcomes and comparing them to their costs.…”

Section: The Rand Corporation and Its Sponsor The Ford Foundation: Imentioning

confidence: 99%

The Economics of Health and Health Care

Folland¹,

Goodman²,

Stano³

2016

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of papers have been published, colloquially designated the 'Blue Series', including methodology and specific analyses of certain drugs, such as cimetidine for ulcer disease and β-adrenoceptor antagonists for postmyocardial infarction. [17] In addition, SmithKline's Cost-Benefit Program spawned what was probably the pharmaceutical industry's first prominent economic assessment of a new drug, cimetidine, [19][20][21] as well as the first prominent industry-sponsored health-related quality-of-life assessment of a new antihypertensive drug, captopril. [22] The assessment of quality of life and its use for evaluating drug treatments among other things is a new kind of analysis, known as cost-utility analysis (CUA), and a relatively new tool for marketing purposes of pharmaceuticals.…”

Section: Historical Roots Of the Pharmacoeconomic Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacoeconomics for the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe

Zikopoulos¹

2003

International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…NICE was introduced in 1999 to promote clinical excellence within the National Health Service (NHS) by reducing variations in the assessment of new health technologies 8 and rapidly became a reference in health economic evaluations. Key CE concepts such as efficiency 9,10 and QALY 11 were first introduced in the United Kingdom. NICE methodological guidelines 12 and technical support documents 13 are now used as references in many countries for conducting CE analyses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021

Trouiller

Laramée

2023

Med Decis Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to compare reimbursement recommendations by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors. Methods Public assessment reports published on NICE and HAS Web sites between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021, describing appraisals for public reimbursement for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors were searched and systematically reviewed. Biosimilars and generic drugs were excluded from the analysis. Results Overall, 119 public assessment reports published by NICE and 134 by HAS were identified, with 101 interventions assessed by both agencies. Of 101, 38 (38%) interventions received similar recommendations, 38 (38%) were recommended for different populations, and 25 (25%) were endorsed by one agency but rejected by the other. The main reason NICE would not recommend a drug was due to lack of cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS would primarily reject a drug on the grounds of insufficient clinical evidence. Conclusion The major divergence between agencies is the key criterion used for reimbursement recommendations. NICE mainly considers cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS primarily focuses on the clinical value of interventions. This contributes to the variability in reimbursement recommendations and leads to differential access to oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors among patients in France, and England and Wales. Highlights Both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) have established formal health technology assessment (HTA) processes and offer universal public health care coverage. However, both agencies diverge in the weight given to different elements of evidence during HTA evaluations. NICE uses cost-effectiveness as key criterion for recommendations on drug reimbursement, while HAS mostly limits its assessment to clinical value. For oncology new medicines indicated for treating solid tumors between 2015 and 2021, recommendations differed 62% of the time between NICE and HAS, primarily due to the distinct key decision-making criteria each HTA agency uses. For 4 interventions not endorsed by NICE, HAS saw these drugs as providing a substantial enhancement in clinical value over existing treatments, potentially providing an edge in price negotiations. Conversely, NICE deemed these drugs as not delivering adequate value for money in comparison with current therapies. A key difference between the 2 agencies is HAS’s insistence on methodological rigor in efficacy results, compared with NICE’s more flexible approach, considering descriptive efficacy results in cost-effectiveness modeling.

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of duodenal ulcer treatment

Cited by 27 publications

References 18 publications

The Economics of Health and Health Care

The Economics of Health and Health Care

Pharmacoeconomics for the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe

Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About