Literature DB >> 17067199

Economic evaluations in the canadian common drug review.

Andreas Laupacis1.   

Abstract

The Canadian Common Drug Review (CDR) was established in 2003 to provide a single process for making formulary recommendations to most Canadian publicly funded drug plans. This paper considers the most common challenges faced by the CDR: (a) determining the effectiveness of a drug (particularly interpreting the importance of surrogate markers and changes in QOL measures); (b) the massive rise in the cost of new drugs, which, in general, does not seem to accompanied by a massive increase in effectiveness; (c) interpreting complex pharmacoeconomic evaluations which often do not provide straightforward answers about the cost effectiveness of a drug; (d) prescription creep (the tendency for drugs in the real world to be used in patients who were not studied in clinical trials, thus raising concerns about a drug's real-world cost effectiveness; and (e) ethical and societal issues, particularly the reimbursement of expensive drugs for rare diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17067199     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  9 in total

1.  Gastrointestinal bleeding after the introduction of COX 2 inhibitors: ecological study.

Authors:  Muhammad Mamdani; David N Juurlink; Alex Kopp; Gary Naglie; Peter C Austin; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-11

2.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Mette T Haahr; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Beyond fast track for drug approvals.

Authors:  Thomas G Roberts; Bruce A Chabner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Karmela Krleza-Jerić; Isabelle Schmid; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-09-28       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Commissioning for rare diseases: view from the frontline.

Authors:  Amanda Burls; Daphne Austin; David Moore
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-29

6.  Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-01-28

Review 7.  Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1).

Authors:  Karmela Krleza-Jerić; An-Wen Chan; Kay Dickersin; Ida Sim; Jeremy Grimshaw; Christian Gluud
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-23

8.  NICE says that patients' age should affect treatment.

Authors:  Susan Mayor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-05-14

9.  A proposal for radical changes in the drug-approval process.

Authors:  Alastair J J Wood
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 91.245

  9 in total
  14 in total

1.  Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations?

Authors:  Angela Rocchi; Elizabeth Miller; Robert B Hopkins; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Better analysis for better decisions: facing up to the challenges.

Authors:  Michael F Drummond; Mark J Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version) : consensus and compromise.

Authors:  Seungjin Bae; Soook Lee; Eun Young Bae; Sunmee Jang
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment.

Authors:  Michael Drummond; Adrian Towse
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-05

5.  Cost-effectiveness of using a gene expression profiling test to aid in identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary.

Authors:  M B Hannouf; E Winquist; S M Mahmud; M Brackstone; S Sarma; G Rodrigues; P Rogan; J S Hoch; G S Zaric
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.550

6.  Cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed without insulin.

Authors:  Chris Cameron; Doug Coyle; Ehud Ur; Scott Klarenbach
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Information technology facilitates cost-effectiveness analysis in developing countries: an observational study of breast cancer chemotherapy in Taiwan.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; I-Wen Pan; Yi-Wen Tsai
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Economic evaluation of frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis based on a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Scott Klarenbach; Marcello Tonelli; Robert Pauly; Michael Walsh; Bruce Culleton; Helen So; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Braden Manns
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 10.121

9.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of multigene expression profiling assays to guide adjuvant therapy decisions in women with invasive early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Malek B Hannouf; Gregory S Zaric; Phillip Blanchette; Christine Brezden-Masley; Mike Paulden; Christopher McCabe; Jacques Raphael; Muriel Brackstone
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.550

Review 10.  A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.

Authors:  Bettina M Zimmermann; Johanna Eichinger; Matthias R Baumgartner
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.123

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.