IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v11y1997i2p159-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Siegel
  • George Torrance
  • Louise Russell
  • Bryan Luce
  • Milton Weinstein
  • Marthe Gold

Abstract

This article reports the recommendations of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, sponsored by the US Public Health Service, on standardised methods for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses. Although not expressly directed at analyses of pharmaceutical agents, the Panel’s recommendations are relevant to pharmacoeconomic studies. The Panel outlines a ‘Reference Case’ set of methodological practices to improve quality and comparability of analyses. Designed for studies that inform resource-allocation decisions, the Reference Case includes recommendations for study framing and scope, components of the numerator and denominator of cost-effectiveness ratios, discounting, handling uncertainty and reporting. The Reference Case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective, and includes all effects of interventions on resource use and health. Resource use includes ‘time’ resources, such as for caregiving or undergoing an intervention. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is the common measure of health effect across Reference Case studies. Although the Panel does not endorse a measure for obtaining quality-of-life weights, several recommendations address the QALY. The Panel recommends a 3% discount rate for costs and health effects. Pharmacoeconomic studies have burgeoned in recent years. The Reference Case analysis will improve study quality and usability, and permit comparison of pharmaceuticals with other health interventions. Copyright Adis International Limited 1997

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Siegel & George Torrance & Louise Russell & Bryan Luce & Milton Weinstein & Marthe Gold, 1997. "Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 159-168, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:11:y:1997:i:2:p:159-168
    DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199711020-00005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/00019053-199711020-00005
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/00019053-199711020-00005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. S Lucas Goede & Linda Rabeneck & Marjolein van Ballegooijen & Ann G Zauber & Lawrence F Paszat & Jeffrey S Hoch & Jean H E Yong & Sonja Kroep & Jill Tinmouth & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, 2017. "Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Bärnighausen, Till & Bloom, David E., 2009. ""Conditional scholarships" for HIV/AIDS health workers: Educating and retaining the workforce to provide antiretroviral treatment in sub-Saharan Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 544-551, February.
    3. Maria E. Mayorga & Emmett J. Lodree & Justin Wolczynski, 2017. "The optimal assignment of spontaneous volunteers," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(9), pages 1106-1116, September.
    4. G. Koning & E. Adang & P. Stalmeier & F. Keus & P. Vriens & C. Laarhoven, 2013. "TIPP and Lichtenstein modalities for inguinal hernia repair: a cost minimisation analysis alongside a randomised trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 1027-1034, December.
    5. Nils Gutacker & Chris Bojke & Silvio Daidone & Nancy Devlin & Andrew Street, 2013. "Hospital Variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes at the Level of EQ-5D Dimensions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 804-818, August.
    6. Kathleen Manipis & Stephen Goodall & Paul Hanly & Rosalie Viney & Alison Pearce, 2021. "Employer survey to estimate the productivity friction period," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(2), pages 255-266, March.
    7. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251, April.
    8. Ágota Szende & Z. Mogyorósy & N. Muszbek & J. Nagy & G. Pallos & C Dözsa, 2002. "Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 3(3), pages 196-206, September.
    9. Lixian Zhong & Vickie Pon & Sandy Srinivas & Nicole Nguyen & Meghan Frear & Sherry Kwon & Cynthia Gong & Robert Malmstrom & Leslie Wilson, 2013. "Therapeutic Options in Docetaxel-Refractory Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    10. Hla-Hla Thein & Yao Qiao & Ahmad Zaheen & Nathaniel Jembere & Gonzalo Sapisochin & Kelvin K W Chan & Eric M Yoshida & Craig C Earle, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:11:y:1997:i:2:p:159-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.