Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines: Sweden
Country/Region: Sweden
PE Guidelines
General guidelines for economic evaluations from The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (updated 2017)
PDF in Swedish
PDF in Swedish
PE Guidelines Source:
The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV)
www.tlv.se
www.tlv.se
Additional Information:
Assessment of Methods in Health Care, The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. August 2017.
www.sbu.se/handbook (English version, SBU’s handbook)
http://www.sbu.se/upload/ebm/metodbok/SBUsHandbok.pdf (Swedish version, SBU’s Handbook)
The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU)
www.sbu.se
Information current as of Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Key Features
| Key Features | |
|---|---|
| Type of Guidelines | PE Guidelines |
| Title and year of the document | Ändring i Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverkets allmänna råd (TLVAR 2003:2) om ekonomiska utvärderingar (2017) |
| Affiliation of authors | The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) |
| Purpose of the document | Guidelines for the economic evaluations for submissions to TLV. |
| Standard reporting format included | No |
| Disclosure | Yes |
| Target audience of funding/ author's interests | Pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) |
| Perspective | Societal |
| Indication | Yes |
| Target population | Yes |
| Subgroup analysis | Yes, where the treatment can be expected to differ in cost effectiveness (for instance gender, age, severity, risk level) |
| Choice of comparator | The most cost effective of the available and clinically relevant treatment options in Sweden |
| Time horizon | Shall cover the period when the main health effects and costs arise. |
| Assumptions required | Not stated |
| Preferred analytical technique | CUA, CEA, CMA |
| Costs to be included | All relevant costs. Production loss estimated by human capital approach |
| Source of costs | TLV.se for drugs |
| Modeling | Yes, requires details |
| Systematic review of evidences | Basis for indirect comparisons |
| Preference for effectiveness over efficacy | Not stated |
| Preferred outcome measure | QALY. WTP in some special circumstances. |
| Preferred method to derive utility | Standard gamble, time trade-off, EQ-5D. |
| Equity issues stated | Not stated |
| Discounting costs | Base: 3%; SA: 0~5%; 3% |
| Discounting outcomes | Base: 3%; SA: 0~5%; 0% |
| Sensitivity analysis-parameters and range | For central assumptions and parameters |
| Sensitivity analysis-methods | Not specific |
| Presenting results | Methods, assumptions made, and detailed data shall be shown clearly that the different steps in the analysis are easily followed. |
| Incremental analysis | Yes |
| Total costs vs effectiveness (cost/effectiveness ratio) | Not specific |
| Portability of results (Generalizability) | Internal and external validation of modelling results |
| Financial impact analysis | Not stated as part of health economic guidelines. Requested in other parts of the submission. |
| Mandatory or recommended or voluntary | Recommended |
Acknowledgement: