SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Australian Commonwealth Department of Health Housing, Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Government Publication, 1992.
  • 2
    Australian Commonwealth Department of Health Housing, Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department, 1995.
  • 3
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1994.
  • 4
    Finish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Guidelines for Reparation of an Account of Health Economic Aspects. Helsinki: Finish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 1999.
  • 5
    Ziekenfondraad. Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondraad), 1999.
  • 6
    The Portuguese Pharmacy and Medicines Institute. Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies on Drugs. Lisbon: INFARMED, 1998.
  • 7
    Regence BlueShield. Guidelines for the Submission of Clinical and Economic Data Supporting Formulary Consideration (Version 1.2). Seattle, WA: Regence Washington Health—University of Washington, 1997.
  • 8
    Mather DB, Sullivan SD, Augenstein D, et al. Incorporating clinical outcomes into drug formulary decisions: a practical approach. Am J Managed Care 1999;5:27785.
  • 9
    Drummond MF & Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:27583.
  • 10
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Revised Guidelines for Manufacturers, Sponsors of Technologies Making Submissions to the Institute. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk.
  • 11
    Alban A, Gyldemark M, Pedersen AV, et al. Economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals (in Danish: Sundhedskonomiske evalueringer af lægemidler). Copenhagen: Schultz, 1995.
  • 12
    National Center for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland. Irish Healthcare Technology Assessment Guidelines (Draft Version 2). Dublin: National Center for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland, 1999.
  • 13
    Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited. A Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis (Version 1). Wellington, NZ: The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Limited (PHARMAC), 1999.
  • 14
    Norwegian Medicines Control Authority. The Norwegian Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in Connection with Application for Reimbursement. Oslo: Norwegian Medicines Control Authority Department of Pharmacoeconomics, 1999.
  • 15
    Langley PC. Formulary guidelines for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Nevada. PharmacoEconomics 1999;16:21124.
  • 16
    Us Food & Drug Administration. Principles for Review of Pharmacoeconomic Promotion (draft). Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1995.
  • 17
    Gricar JA, Langley PC, Luce B, et al. AMCP's Format for Formulary Submissions: A Format for Submissions of Clinical and Economic Evaluation Data in Support of Formulary Consideration by Managed Health Care Systems in the United States. Alexandria, VA. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), 2000. Available from http://www.amcp.org/public/formulary/sub/.
  • 18
    Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung. Swiss Manual for the Standardization of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology (second draft). Bern: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung, 1995.
  • 19
    Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. A Proposal for Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Brussels: Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (BESPE), 1995.
  • 20
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals (2nd edn.). Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 1997.
  • 21
    Collège des Economistes de la Santé. Guidelines and Recommendations for French Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Paris: Collège des Economistes de la Santé (CES), 1997.
  • 22
    Garattini L, Grilli R, Scopelliti D, Mantovani L. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. PharmacoEconomics 1995;7:16.
  • 23
    General Directorate of Services and Evaluation of Health Technologies and the General Directorate of Insurance and Health Planning of the Ministry of Health and Consumption. Proposal for Standardization of Some Methodological Aspects of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (CEA), Cost-Utility Analyses (CUA), and Cost-Minimization Analyses (CMA) in the Evaluating of Health Technologies and Programs. Madrid: General Directorate of Services and Evaluation of Health Technologies and the General Directorate of Insurance and Health Planning of the Ministry of Health and Consumption, 1994.
  • 24
    Rovira J & Antonanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programs. A Spanish proposal for methodological standardization. PharmacoEconomics 1995;8:24552.
  • 25
    Graf vd Shulenberg J-M. Hanover Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Health Services (in German: Hanover Guidelines für die ökonomische Evaluation von Gesundheitsgütern und -dienstleistungen). Hanover: Institut für Versicherungsbetriebs-lehre, Diskussionspapier Nr. 10, January 1995. Die Pharmazeutische Industrie 1995;57:2658.
  • 26
    Government/Pharmaceutical Industry Working Party. UK guidance on good practice in the conduct of economic evaluations of medicines. Br J Med Ec 1994;7:634.
  • 27
    Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. PharmacoEconomics 1997;11:15968.
  • 28
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Methodological and Conduct Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), 1995.
  • 29
    Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:6170.
  • 30
    Drummond MF. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies—the ways forward. PharmacoEconomics 1994;6:4937.
  • 31
    Gold RG, Russell LR, Siegel JE, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • 32
    Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart LG, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • 33
    Luce BR & Simpson K. Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Clin Ther 1995;17:10925.
  • 34
    DeVries A & Gagnon JP. Cost-effectiveness evaluation in health care: initiative for a standardized methodology. Managed Care Med 1995;2:2533.
  • 35
    Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi J-F. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. PharmacoEconomics 1995;8:1829.
  • 36
    Genduso AG & Kotsanos JK. Review of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies and positions. Drug Information Journal 1996;30:100316.
  • 37
    Mullins DC & Ogilvie S. Emerging standardization in pharmacoeconomics. Clin Ther 1998;20:1194202.
  • 38
    Drummond M, Dubois D, Garattini L, et al. Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health 1999; 2:32332.
  • 39
    Hutton J & Maynard A. A NICE Challenge for health economics. Health Econ 2000;9:8993.
  • 40
    Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses—a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. JAMA 2000;283: 211621.
  • 41
    Anis AH & Gagnon Y. Using economic evaluation to make formulary coverage decisions—so much for guidelines. PharmacoEconomics 2000; 18:5562.
  • 42
    Rennie D & Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses—making them transparent, making them credible. JAMA 2000;283:215860.
  • 43
    Anonymous. NICE rejects Glaxo Wellcome appeal against Relenza NHS ban. Pharmaceut J 1999; 263:56.
  • 44
    Anonymous. A nasty start for NICE [editorial]. Lancet 1999;354 (9187):1313.DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)00181-6
  • 45
    Schuchman M. Drug firm threatens suit over MD's product review. Toronto Globe and Mail, November 17, 1999.
  • 46
    Wilkingson M. Cut-price medicine put at risk. Sydney Morning Herald, December 1,1999.