Literature DB >> 12241891

A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Karl Claxton1, Mark Sculpher, Michael Drummond.   

Abstract

Regulatory and reimbursement authorities face uncertain choices when considering the adoption of health-care technologies. In this Viewpoint, we present an analytic framework that separates the issue of whether a technology should be adopted on the basis of existing evidence from whether more research should be demanded to support future decisions. We show the application of this framework to the assessment of heath-care technologies using a published analysis of a new drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease. The results of the analysis show that the amount and type of evidence required to support the adoption of a health technology will differ substantially between technologies with different characteristics. Additionally, the analysis can be used to aid the efficient design of research. We discuss the implications of adoption of this new framework for regulatory and reimbursement decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12241891     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09832-X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  101 in total

1.  A role for two-stage pharmacoeconomic appraisal? Is there a role for interim approval of a drug for reimbursement based on modelling studies with subsequent full approval using phase III data?

Authors:  Suzanne Hill; Nick Freemantle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Health care costs: how do we decide value? When do we decide? How do we particularize the decisions?

Authors:  Richard L Theriault
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-02-02

3.  When to wait for more evidence? Real options analysis in proton therapy.

Authors:  Janneke P C Grutters; Keith R Abrams; Dirk de Ruysscher; Madelon Pijls-Johannesma; Hans J M Peters; Eric Beutner; Philippe Lambin; Manuela A Joore
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2011-12-06

Review 4.  International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US.

Authors:  Adrian R Levy; Craig Mitton; Karissa M Johnston; Brian Harrigan; Andrew H Briggs
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion.

Authors:  Bryan R Luce; Michael Drummond; Bengt Jönsson; Peter J Neumann; J Sanford Schwartz; Uwe Siebert; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.911

6.  The analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data for reimbursement decisions: a critical appraisal of recent methodological developments.

Authors:  Andrea Manca; Mark J Sculpher; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Calibration of complex models through Bayesian evidence synthesis: a demonstration and tutorial.

Authors:  Christopher H Jackson; Mark Jit; Linda D Sharples; Daniela De Angelis
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity?

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Karl Claxton; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-29

9.  Incorporation of uncertainty in health economic modelling studies.

Authors:  Anthony O'Hagan; Christopher McCabe; Ron Akehurst; Alan Brennan; Andrew Briggs; Karl Claxton; Elisabeth Fenwick; Dennis Fryback; Mark Sculpher; David Spiegelhalter; Andrew Willan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.

Authors:  Zoë Philips; Laura Bojke; Mark Sculpher; Karl Claxton; Su Golder
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.