|
Key
Features: |
|
| Title and year of the Document | Guideline for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals, 2002 |
| Affiliation of authors | Experts from health authorities of the Baltic countries |
| Main policy objective | Drug reimbursement and other state funding decisions |
| Standard reporting format included | No |
| Disclosure | Yes |
| Target audience of funding/ author’s interests | Pharmaceutical companies. Baltic states’ health authority |
| Perspective | Mainly health care perspective. If relevant, societal |
| Indication | Approved one(s) |
| Target population | Yes |
| Subgroup analysis | Yes |
| Choice of comparator | Most commonly used alternative or practice. Be justified. |
| Time horizon | To model a sufficient analysis period when trial data provide too short a time frame |
| Assumptions required | Not stated |
| Preferred analytical technique | Any one of CMA, CEA, CUA. Need justification. |
| Costs to be included | Only direct health care costs. If relevant, include all costs outside healthcare system, presented separately. |
| Source of costs | Adapt local cost. Be specified. |
| Modeling | Yes, requires details |
| Systematic review of evidences | Encourage meta-analysis |
| Preference for effectiveness over efficacy | Prefer data from RCTs |
| Preferred outcome measure | Change in the health state. Absolute risk difference calculated |
| Preferred method to derive utility | EuroQol, Health Utility Index |
| Equity issues stated | Not stated |
| Discounting costs | Yes, 5% justify for other rates |
| Discounting outcomes | Yes, 5% |
| Sensitivity analysis-parameters and range | Main assumption variables, confidence interval |
| Sensitivity analysis-methods | Details of the statistical tests performed |
| Presenting results | C/E ratio, ICER, total annual cost and benefit |
| Incremental analysis | Yes |
| Total C/E | Yes |
| Portability of results (Generalizability) | Adjustment needed |
| Financial impact analysis | No |
| Mandatory or recommended or voluntary | |
