What do national pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommend regarding the statistical analysis of trial-based economic evaluations?

References

• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford university press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. Bmj. 2011;342:d1548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roseboom KJ, van Dongen JM, Tompa E, et al. Economic evaluations of health technologies in Dutch healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study of the current and potential use, barriers, and facilitators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, et al. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. SOUTHAMPTON. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(7):iii, ix-x, 1–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbieri M, Drummond M, Rutten F, et al. What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability? Value Health. 2010;13:1028–1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lier LI, Bosmans JE, van Hout HP, et al. Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study. Eur J Health Econ. 2018:19(7):993-1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4:225–250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bracco A, Krol M. Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: current status and comparisons. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:579–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Action EJ, Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, et al. Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:59–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Fang C-H, Cohen JT. 30 years of pharmaceutical cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:861–872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Alili M, van Dongen JM, Huirne JA, et al. Reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35:1007–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost–utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health. 2005;8:3–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vijgen SM, Opmeer BC, Mol BWJ. The methodological quality of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics and gynecology: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:253–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoomans T, Evers SM, Ament AJ, et al. The methodological quality of economic evaluations of guideline implementation into clinical practice: a systematic review of empiric studies. Value Health. 2007;10:305–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoomans T, Severens JL, van der Roer N, et al. Methodological quality of economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:219–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabrio A, Mason AJ, Baio G. Handling missing data in within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis: a review with future recommendations. PharmacoEconomics-open. 2017;1:79–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doshi JA, Glick HA, Polsky D. Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health. 2006;9:334–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, et al. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials: a systematic review and checklist for critical appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32:209–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz-Ordaz K, Kenward MG, Cohen A, et al. Are missing data adequately handled in cluster randomised trials? A systematic review and guidelines. Clin Trial. 2014;11:590–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost‐effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT‐CEA task force report. Value Health. 2005;8:521–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ. 2005;14:1217–1229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14:487–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11:415–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Asselt AD, van Mastrigt GA, Dirksen CD, et al. How to deal with cost differences at baseline. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:519–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dongen JM, van Wier MF, Tompa E, et al. Trial-based economic evaluations in occupational health: principles, methods, and recommendations. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56:563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2015;18:161–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polsky D, Glick HA, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost–effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ. 1997;6:243–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data. Health Econ. 2004;13:461–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glick H, Doshi J. Designing economic evaluations in clinical trials. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bachmann MO, Fairall L, Clark A, et al. Methods for analyzing cost effectiveness data from cluster randomized trials. Cost Eff Resour Allocation. 2007;5:12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, et al. Methods for covariate adjustment in cost‐effectiveness analysis that use cluster randomised trials. Health Econ. 2012;21:1101–1118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieve R, Nixon R, Thompson SG. Bayesian hierarchical models for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30:163–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng ES, Diaz-Ordaz K, Grieve R, et al. Multilevel models for cost-effectiveness analyses that use cluster randomised trial data: an approach to model choice. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25:2036–2052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Ibrahim JG, et al. Joint generalized estimating equations for multivariate longitudinal binary outcomes with missing data: an application to acquired immune deficiency syndrome data. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc. 2009;172:3–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble SM, Hollingworth W, Tilling K. Missing data in trial based cost effectiveness analysis: the current state of play. Health Econ. 2012;21:187–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z. Missing data imputation: focusing on single imputation. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sekhon JS, Grieve RD. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost effectiveness analyses. Health Econ. 2012;21:695–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twisk JW. Applied longitudinal data analysis for epidemiology: a practical guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen KM, Bosmans JE, Jansen AP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a chronic care model for frail older adults in primary care: economic evaluation alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(12):2494–2504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Version 5.0. Australian Government, Department of Health. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Walter E, Zehetmayr S Guidelines on health economic evaluation–consensus paper. Inst Pharmaeconomic Res. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Diretrizes metodológicas: diretriz de avaliação econômica. Ministério da Saúde Brasília, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Behmane D, Lambot K, Irs A, et al. Baltic guideline for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals (pharmacoeconomic analysis). The Baltics: Baltic Health Authorities; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 4th ed. Canada. Ottawa (ON): The Agency; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo M, Castillo C, Loayza S, et al. Guía Metodológica Para La Evaluación Económica de Intervenciones En Salud En Chile. Subsecretaria de salud pública, Santiago, Chil: MINSAL; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud. Manual para la elaboración de evaluaciones económicas en salud. Bogotá: IETS; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care, Department for development, research and health technology assessment: the Croatian guideline for health technology assessment process and reporting. Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care, Zagreb (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Gálvez González AM. Guía metodológica para la evaluación económica en salud: Cuba, 2003. Rev Cub Salud Publica. 2004;30.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen FB, Hørder M. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Elsisi GH, Kaló Z, Eldessouki R, et al. Recommendations for reporting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt. Value Health Reg Issues. 2013;2:319–327.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Preparing a health economic evaluation to be attached to the application for reimbursement status and wholesale price for a medical product. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Quality Efficiency in Health Care. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. Colgne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition. Professional healthcare guideline on the methodology of health technology assessment. J Hung Pharm Authority Doctors Pharm. 2017;67(1):1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Cheraghali N, Dinarvand. Criteria for developing an economic evaluation file - 2017 to 2019. Iran FDA, Medicine selecting committee secretriate 2017.
   Google Scholar
• The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health Technologies in Ireland 2018. Health Information and Quality Authority, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L, et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:189–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health Pharmaceutical Administration. Guidelines for the submission of a request to include a pharmaceutical product in the national list of health services. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Study team for “Establishing evaluation methods DS, and assessment systems toward the application of economic evaluation of healthcare technologies to governmental policies”. Guideline for Preparing Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation to the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health Malaysia - Pharmaceutical Services Devision. Pharmacoeconomic guideline for Malaysia. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• de Salubridad General C Guía para la conducción de estudios de evaluación económica para la actualización del Cuadro Básico de Insumos del Sector Salud en México. Dirección General Adjunta de Priorización Comisión interinstitucional del Cuadro Básico de Insumos del Sector Salud. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Common Market of the Southern Cone (MERCOSUR). Guía Para Estudios De Evaluación Económica De Tecnologías Sanitarias/Guideline For Economic Evaluation Of Health Technologies. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• PHARMAC (Pharmaceutical Management Agency). Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis (v 2.2), 2015.
   Google Scholar
• The Norwegian Medicines Agency. Guidelines on how to conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• The Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System. Health technology assessment guidelines version 3.0. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Da Silva EA, Pinto C, Sampaio C, et al. Guidelines for economic drug evaluation studies. Lisbon, Portugal: INFARMED. 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Guidelines for conducting a comparative clinical and economic evaluation of drugs. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form (NPAF). 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Republic of South Africa. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic submissions. Government Gazette. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• López-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antonanzas F, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:513–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puig-Junoy J, Oliva-Moreno J, Trapero-Bertran M, et al. Guía y recomendaciones para la realización y presentación de evaluaciones económicas y análisis de impacto presupuestario de medicamentos en el ámbito del CatSalut. Barcelona: Servei Català de la Salut (CatSalut); 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment; Assessment of Social Services. Assessment of methods in health care–a handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment; Assessment of Social Services. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesamt für Gesunheid BAG. Operationalisation of the terms effectiveness, expediency and profitability of pharmaceuticals. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Taiwan Society for Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Research. Guidelines of methodological standards for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health.Guidelines for health technology assessment in Thailand (Second edition). J Med Assoc Thailand. 97(Suppl(5)):2014:S1-S134.
   Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions. Version 4.0.
   Google Scholar
• Ramaekers BL, Joore MA, Grutters JP. How should we deal with patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation: a systematic review of national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2013;16:855–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Economics and Public Health Assessment. Choices in methods for economic evaluation. Paris, France: Public Health Assessment Haute Autorité de Santé; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Evers S, Goossens M, De Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Bmj. 1996;313:275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van de Sande S, et al. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) KCE Report C. 183. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2012.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Knies S, Severens JL, Ament AJ, et al. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. Differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2010;13:519–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters: the need for greater power in cost analyses poses an ethical dilemma. BMJ. 2000;321(7273):1362–1363.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Jama. 2016;316(10):1093–1103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar