Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 2/2002

01-02-2002 | Leading Article

Design, Analysis and Presentation of Multinational Economic Studies

The Need for Guidance

Author: Dr Francis Pang

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 2/2002

Login to get access

Abstract

Over the last decade, there has been a proliferation in the number of economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals to meet the growing demand for information about the economic benefits of healthcare technologies. The majority of these studies have been commissioned by pharmaceutical companies for the purposes of drawing attention to the resource and quality-of-life aspects of new or existing products. Such information has become important in overcoming a new obstacle, namely the demonstration of cost effectiveness (the so-called ‘fourth hurdle’), in addition to the three well-established criteria of quality, tolerability and efficacy.
To ensure the maintenance of standards, guidance for economic evaluations has emerged lately in the form of guidelines, regulations, principles, policies and positions. Drummond outlined three purposes of these guidelines, as follows: as a requirement prior to reimbursement, as statements of methodological standards, and as a statement of ethical standards. Such guidelines are designed to assist both the economic analyst and the decision-maker. In laying out the state of the art regarding the methodology of economic evaluation, guidelines assist the analyst in performing high-quality, scientifically valid studies, and assist the decision-maker in properly interpreting and assessing their quality.
In response to these growing requirements for cost-effectiveness data globally, it has become increasingly common for economic evaluations to be conducted on an international scale. However, the recommendations in pharmacoeconomics guidelines regarding the manner in which these multinational economic evaluations should be designed, analysed and presented are too limited to be of any real value. This article examines the various issues that must be taken into consideration when conducting multinational studies, and provides a review of the techniques and approaches that have been suggested to date. It concludes with recommendations for potential inclusion in future sets of pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997
2.
go back to reference Coyle D, Drummond M. Analysing differences in the costs of treatment across centres within economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 155–63PubMedCrossRef Coyle D, Drummond M. Analysing differences in the costs of treatment across centres within economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 155–63PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside controlled trials. Leeds: Department of Health, 1994 Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside controlled trials. Leeds: Department of Health, 1994
4.
5.
go back to reference Liedl RM. Some factors to consider when using the results of economic evaluation studies at the population level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1994; 10: 467–78CrossRef Liedl RM. Some factors to consider when using the results of economic evaluation studies at the population level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1994; 10: 467–78CrossRef
6.
go back to reference O’Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein’s monster or vampire of trials? Med Care 1996; 34: DS99–108PubMed O’Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein’s monster or vampire of trials? Med Care 1996; 34: DS99–108PubMed
7.
go back to reference Heyland DK, Kernerman P, Gafni A, et al. Economic evaluations in the critical care literature: do they help us improve the efficiency of our unit? Crit Care Med 1996; 24 (9): 1591–8PubMedCrossRef Heyland DK, Kernerman P, Gafni A, et al. Economic evaluations in the critical care literature: do they help us improve the efficiency of our unit? Crit Care Med 1996; 24 (9): 1591–8PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bryan S, Brown J. Extrapolation of cost-effectiveness information to local settings. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3: 108–12PubMed Bryan S, Brown J. Extrapolation of cost-effectiveness information to local settings. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3: 108–12PubMed
9.
go back to reference Coyle D. Increasing the impact of economic evaluation on health-care decision-making. York: York University, 1993, York CHE Discussion paper no. 108 Coyle D. Increasing the impact of economic evaluation on health-care decision-making. York: York University, 1993, York CHE Discussion paper no. 108
10.
go back to reference Drummond M, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 583–95PubMedCrossRef Drummond M, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (4): 583–95PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95–104PubMedCrossRef Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95–104PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference CHE York Expert Workshops in Economic Evaluation. York, 1998 CHE York Expert Workshops in Economic Evaluation. York, 1998
13.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Blooms BS, Carrin G, et al. Issues in the crossnational assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8 (4): 671–82PubMedCrossRef Drummond MF, Blooms BS, Carrin G, et al. Issues in the crossnational assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8 (4): 671–82PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Phelps C. Good technologies gone bad: how and why the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention changes for different populations. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 107–17PubMedCrossRef Phelps C. Good technologies gone bad: how and why the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention changes for different populations. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 107–17PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF, Buxton MJ. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 26–30PubMed Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF, Buxton MJ. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 26–30PubMed
16.
go back to reference Pang F. Multinational economic evaluations: a review of published studies, methodological issues and practice [abstract]. Value Health 1999; 2 (5): 380 Pang F. Multinational economic evaluations: a review of published studies, methodological issues and practice [abstract]. Value Health 1999; 2 (5): 380
17.
go back to reference Drummond MF. Comparing cost-effectiveness across countries: the model of acid-related disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5 Suppl. 3: 60–7CrossRef Drummond MF. Comparing cost-effectiveness across countries: the model of acid-related disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5 Suppl. 3: 60–7CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Arikian SR, Einarson TR, Kobelt-Nguyen G, et al. A multinational pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 1994; 130 Suppl. 43: 35–44PubMedCrossRef Arikian SR, Einarson TR, Kobelt-Nguyen G, et al. A multinational pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 1994; 130 Suppl. 43: 35–44PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Simpson K, Hatzaindreu EJ, Anderson F, et al. Cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment with zalcitabine plus zidovudine for AIDS patients with CD4+ counts less than 300/uL in 5 European countries. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6 (6): 553–62PubMedCrossRef Simpson K, Hatzaindreu EJ, Anderson F, et al. Cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment with zalcitabine plus zidovudine for AIDS patients with CD4+ counts less than 300/uL in 5 European countries. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6 (6): 553–62PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332 (21): 1418–24PubMedCrossRef Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332 (21): 1418–24PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mark DB, Naylor D, Hlatky MA, et al. Use of medical resources and quality of life after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1130–5PubMedCrossRef Mark DB, Naylor D, Hlatky MA, et al. Use of medical resources and quality of life after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1130–5PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Schulman KA, Buxton M, Glick H, et al. Results of the economic evaluation of the FIRST study: a multinational prospective economic evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (4): 698–713PubMedCrossRef Schulman KA, Buxton M, Glick H, et al. Results of the economic evaluation of the FIRST study: a multinational prospective economic evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (4): 698–713PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Jonsson B, Johannesson M, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering: results from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 1001–7PubMedCrossRef Jonsson B, Johannesson M, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering: results from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 1001–7PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Menzin J, Oster G, Davies L, et al. A multinational economic evaluation of rhDNase in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 52–61PubMedCrossRef Menzin J, Oster G, Davies L, et al. A multinational economic evaluation of rhDNase in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 52–61PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Jonsson B, Weinstein MC. Economic evaluation alongside multinational clinical trials: study considerations for GUSTO IIb. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13 (1): 49–58PubMedCrossRef Jonsson B, Weinstein MC. Economic evaluation alongside multinational clinical trials: study considerations for GUSTO IIb. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13 (1): 49–58PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Janssen B, Capri S, Nuijten MJC, et al. Economic evaluation of meloxicam (7.5 mg) versus sustained release diclofenac (100mg) treatment for osteoarthritis: a cross-national assessment for France, Italy and the UK. Br J Med Econ 1997; 11: 9–22 Janssen B, Capri S, Nuijten MJC, et al. Economic evaluation of meloxicam (7.5 mg) versus sustained release diclofenac (100mg) treatment for osteoarthritis: a cross-national assessment for France, Italy and the UK. Br J Med Econ 1997; 11: 9–22
27.
go back to reference Glick H, Willke R, Polsky D, et al. Economic analysis of tirilazad mesylate for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (1): 145–60PubMedCrossRef Glick H, Willke R, Polsky D, et al. Economic analysis of tirilazad mesylate for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (1): 145–60PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Glick H, Polsky D, Willke R, et al. Comparison of the use of medical resources and outcomes in the treatment of aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage between Canada and the United States. Stroke 1998; 29: 351–8PubMedCrossRef Glick H, Polsky D, Willke R, et al. Comparison of the use of medical resources and outcomes in the treatment of aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage between Canada and the United States. Stroke 1998; 29: 351–8PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Rutten-van Molken M, Van Doorslaer EKA, Till MD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (6): 671–84PubMedCrossRef Rutten-van Molken M, Van Doorslaer EKA, Till MD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (6): 671–84PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, Duchesne I. Management patterns and costs of acute ischemic stroke: an international study. Stroke 2000; 31: 582–90PubMedCrossRef Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, Duchesne I. Management patterns and costs of acute ischemic stroke: an international study. Stroke 2000; 31: 582–90PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Coyle D, Lee KM. The problem of protocol driven costs in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (4): 357–63PubMedCrossRef Coyle D, Lee KM. The problem of protocol driven costs in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (4): 357–63PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Pang F. The application of multilevel modelling and cluster analysis to multinational economic data [abstract]. Value Health 1999; 2 (3): 219CrossRef Pang F. The application of multilevel modelling and cluster analysis to multinational economic data [abstract]. Value Health 1999; 2 (3): 219CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Van de Werf F, Topol EJ, Lee KL, et al. Variations in patient management and outcomes for acute myocardial infarction in the United States and other countries: results from the GUSTO trial. JAMA 1995; 273: 1586–91PubMedCrossRef Van de Werf F, Topol EJ, Lee KL, et al. Variations in patient management and outcomes for acute myocardial infarction in the United States and other countries: results from the GUSTO trial. JAMA 1995; 273: 1586–91PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, et al. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998; 7: 481–93PubMedCrossRef Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, et al. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998; 7: 481–93PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Ellwein LB, Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: bias in the assessment of economic outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 691–7PubMedCrossRef Ellwein LB, Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: bias in the assessment of economic outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 691–7PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Johnston K, Gerard K, Brown J. Generalising costs from the breast screening frequency and age trials. Uxbridge: Brunel University; 1997. Health Economics Research Group Discussion paper no. 19 Johnston K, Gerard K, Brown J. Generalising costs from the breast screening frequency and age trials. Uxbridge: Brunel University; 1997. Health Economics Research Group Discussion paper no. 19
38.
go back to reference Cook J, Drummond MF, Glick H, et al. Analyzing economic data from multinational clinical trials. Issues and recommendations. Paper presented at the Health Economists Study group meeting; York, 9–11 Jul 1997, York Cook J, Drummond MF, Glick H, et al. Analyzing economic data from multinational clinical trials. Issues and recommendations. Paper presented at the Health Economists Study group meeting; York, 9–11 Jul 1997, York
39.
go back to reference Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 334: 1383–9 Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 334: 1383–9
40.
go back to reference Schulman KA, Glick H, Buxton M, et al. The economic evaluation of the FIRST study: design of a prospective analysis alongside a mutinational phase III clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 304–15PubMedCrossRef Schulman KA, Glick H, Buxton M, et al. The economic evaluation of the FIRST study: design of a prospective analysis alongside a mutinational phase III clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 304–15PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Raikou M, Briggs A, Gray A, et al. Centre-specific or average unit costs in multi-centre studies? Some theory and simulation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 191–8PubMedCrossRef Raikou M, Briggs A, Gray A, et al. Centre-specific or average unit costs in multi-centre studies? Some theory and simulation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 191–8PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Schulman K, Burke J, Drummond M, et al. Resource costing for multinational neurological clinical trials: methods and results. Health Econ 1998; 7: 629–38PubMedCrossRef Schulman K, Burke J, Drummond M, et al. Resource costing for multinational neurological clinical trials: methods and results. Health Econ 1998; 7: 629–38PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Purchasing Power Parities. Paris: OECD, 1993 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Purchasing Power Parities. Paris: OECD, 1993
44.
go back to reference Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘distribution problem’ in economic evaluation: income considerations in the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. CHEPA Working Paper no. 98-10. Hamilton (ON): Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 1998 Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘distribution problem’ in economic evaluation: income considerations in the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. CHEPA Working Paper no. 98-10. Hamilton (ON): Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 1998
45.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Revised guidelines for manufacturers and sponsors of technologies making submissions to the institute [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ [Accessed 2001 Sep] National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Revised guidelines for manufacturers and sponsors of technologies making submissions to the institute [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​ [Accessed 2001 Sep]
46.
go back to reference Kassell NF, Haley C, Apperson-Hansen C, et al. Randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial of tirilazad mesylate in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a cooperative study in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. J Neurosurg 1996; 84: 221–8PubMedCrossRef Kassell NF, Haley C, Apperson-Hansen C, et al. Randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial of tirilazad mesylate in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a cooperative study in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. J Neurosurg 1996; 84: 221–8PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Briggs AH, Hoch JS, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something BLUE: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Paper presented at the Health Economists Study Group meeting; Oxford, 3–5 Jan 2001 Briggs AH, Hoch JS, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something BLUE: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Paper presented at the Health Economists Study Group meeting; Oxford, 3–5 Jan 2001
48.
go back to reference Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Oliver AJ, et al. A case for the adoption of pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Japan. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 546–51PubMedCrossRef Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Oliver AJ, et al. A case for the adoption of pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Japan. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 546–51PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Drummond M, Dubois D, Garattini L, et al. Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health 1999; 2 (5): 323–32PubMedCrossRef Drummond M, Dubois D, Garattini L, et al. Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health 1999; 2 (5): 323–32PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Genduso LA, Kotsanos JG. Review of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies and positions. Drug Inf J 1996; 30: 1003–16CrossRef Genduso LA, Kotsanos JG. Review of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies and positions. Drug Inf J 1996; 30: 1003–16CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Cochrane Economics Methods Group. Paper presented at the Health Economists Study Group meeting, 1999. Aberdeen, 14–16 Jul Cochrane Economics Methods Group. Paper presented at the Health Economists Study Group meeting, 1999. Aberdeen, 14–16 Jul
52.
go back to reference Murray CJL, Evans DB, Acharya A, et al. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9: 235–51PubMedCrossRef Murray CJL, Evans DB, Acharya A, et al. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9: 235–51PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme. The stability of cost-effectiveness analysis. Call for proposal. Southampton: NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment, 1999 Apr. SGHT no.98/22 NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme. The stability of cost-effectiveness analysis. Call for proposal. Southampton: NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment, 1999 Apr. SGHT no.98/22
54.
go back to reference Krahn M, Gafni A. Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Med Care 1993; 31 (5): 403–18PubMedCrossRef Krahn M, Gafni A. Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Med Care 1993; 31 (5): 403–18PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee: including major submissions involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service of Australia, 1995 Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee: including major submissions involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service of Australia, 1995
56.
go back to reference Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals 2nd ed. Ottawa (ON): CCOHTA, 1997 Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals 2nd ed. Ottawa (ON): CCOHTA, 1997
57.
go back to reference Ziekenfondsraad — National Insurance Council. Pharmacoeconomic research guideline. The Netherlands: Ziekenfondsraad, 1999 Ziekenfondsraad — National Insurance Council. Pharmacoeconomic research guideline. The Netherlands: Ziekenfondsraad, 1999
58.
go back to reference Danish Ministry of Health. Guidelines for the drawing up of economic analyses of medicines in Denmark. Copenhagen: Ministry of Health, 1998 Danish Ministry of Health. Guidelines for the drawing up of economic analyses of medicines in Denmark. Copenhagen: Ministry of Health, 1998
59.
go back to reference Levy E, on behalf of Expert Committee of the College des Economistes de la Sante. La letter du collage. Guidelines and recommendations for French pharmaco-economic studies. Paris: College des Economistes de la Sante, 1996 Levy E, on behalf of Expert Committee of the College des Economistes de la Sante. La letter du collage. Guidelines and recommendations for French pharmaco-economic studies. Paris: College des Economistes de la Sante, 1996
60.
go back to reference Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Washington, D.C.: PhRMA, 1995 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Washington, D.C.: PhRMA, 1995
61.
go back to reference Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 61–70 Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 61–70
62.
go back to reference Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, Food and Drug Adminstration. Principles for the review of pharmacoeconomic promotion. Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration, 1995 Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, Food and Drug Adminstration. Principles for the review of pharmacoeconomic promotion. Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration, 1995
63.
go back to reference Consensus Conference on Guidelines on Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment: consensus statement and background papers. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 443–51 Consensus Conference on Guidelines on Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment: consensus statement and background papers. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 443–51
Metadata
Title
Design, Analysis and Presentation of Multinational Economic Studies
The Need for Guidance
Author
Dr Francis Pang
Publication date
01-02-2002
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 2/2002
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220020-00001

Other articles of this Issue 2/2002

PharmacoEconomics 2/2002 Go to the issue