Research Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Pharmacoeconomics and Quality of Life Parameters Impact on Drug Treatment


Affiliations
1 Department of Pharmacy, JJT University, Vidyanagari, Churu Jhunjhunu Road, Chudela, District-Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Pharmacoeconomics concerns the application of the methods of economic evaluation of health care programs to interventions involving pharmaceutical products.The purpose of the methods, and the studies, is to help inform programmatic decision-making regarding the appropriateness and availability of health care interventions including drugs. Results of such programmatic decision-making (e.g. formulary listings, clinical guidelines, appropriate prescribing practices) will often impact on treatments for individual patients.The need to use more complete information in decision-making is reflected in the growing number of pharmacoeconomic guideline documents in the literature.Pharmacoeconomic studies compare the costs and consequences of pharmaceutical products with relevant alternatives. These studies are pertinent to the decision-making process when trying to balance additional costs associated with one alternative over another, versus their respective differences in clinical outcome. The overall technical goal of pharmacoeconomics is to identify treatments and drugs which may be worthy of support, such that the overall good that is done is maximized (or equivalently, the opportunity costs incurred are minimized) within the constrained resources available. Pharmacoeconomic studies in their proper role are used to inform decision-making, not to replace it. The studies are not to be used in a thoughtless, mechanistic fashion. They do not replace hard thinking, careful consideration, good judgement and common sense. When properly used and properly qualified, they provide essential information as input into the decision-making process. They are not the only input, however; other considerations such as justice, equity, access, choice and process factors also come into play.

Keywords

Pharmacoeconomics, Health Care Intervention, Programmatic Decision Making, Pharmaceutical Product.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Feeny D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P. Health care technology: effectiveness, efficiency and public policy. Montreal, QC: The Institute for Research on Public Policy; 1986.

  • Detsky AS, Naglie G. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 1990; 113(2): 147-154.

  • Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1(1): 20-32.

  • Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluation. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1992; 146(4): 473-481.

  • Eisenberg JM, Schulman KA, Glick H, Koffer H. Pharmacoeconomics: economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley&Sons; 1994. p. 469-493.

  • Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF, editors. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Harvey Whitney Books Company; 1996.

  • Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.

  • Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi JF. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 8(3): 182-189.

  • Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313(7052): 275-283.

  • Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Oliver AJ, Ikeda M. A case for the adoption of pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Japan. PharmacoEconomics 1996;10(6):546-551.

  • Diana Brixner. Practitioner update: Outcomes Research, Pharmacoeconomics and the Pharmaceutical Industry JMCP Jan/Feb 1996 Val 2, No.1.

  • Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials-revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Hea1th Care 1991; 7: 561-73.

  • Stergachis A. Overview of cost-consequence modeling in outcomes research. Pharmacotherapy 1995; 15: 405-425.

  • Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A. The impact of age on costeffectiveness ratios and its control in decision-making. Health Economics 1996; 5(3): 227-239.

  • Oxman AD. Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews. In: Sackett D, Oxman A, editors. The Cochrane Collaboration handbook. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 1996.

  • Weinstein MC. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1990; 6 (1): 93-103.

  • Seigel JE, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW. Reporting cost effectiveness studies and results. In: Gold MR, Seigel JE, Russell LB and Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. P. 276-303.

  • O'Brien BJ. A tale of two (or more) cities: geographic transferability of pharmacoeconomic data. American Journal of Managed Care. In press 1997.

  • Tugwell P, Bennett KJ, Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The measurement iterative loop: a framework for the critical appraisal of need, benefits and costs of health interventions. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1985; 38(4): 339-351.

  • Bailey KR. Generalizing the results of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1994; 15(1): 15-23.

  • Bloomfield Rubins H. From clinical trials to clinical practice: generalizing from participant to patient. Controlled Clinical Trials 1994;15(1):7-10.

  • Davis CE. Generalizing from clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1994; 15: 11-14.

  • Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Kjekshus J, Olsson AG, Pedersen TR, Wedel H. Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336(5): 332-336.

  • L'AbbĂ© KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Annals of Internal Medicine 1987; 107(2): 224-233.

  • Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276(8): 637-639.

  • Huston P, Hoey J. CMAJ endorses the CONSORT statement. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1996; 155(9): 1277-1279.

  • Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.

  • Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten SJ, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1989; 140(12): 1441-1448.

  • Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine 1993; 118(8): 622-629.

  • Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Labelle R. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 85-95.

  • Clinch JJ. The functional living index - cancer: Ten years later. In: Spilker B, editor.Q uality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p.215-225.

  • Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Journal of Rheumatology 1988; 15(12): 1833-1840.

  • Fretwell MD. Frail older patients: creating standards of care. In: Spilker B. editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p.809-817.

  • Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, Lawrence MG, Cook EF, Dailey R, et al. Development of the 'Activities of Daily Vision Scale'. A measure of visual functional status. Medical Care 1992; 30(12): 1111-1126.

  • Mangione CM, Lee PP, Hayse RD. Measurement of visual functioning and health-related quality of life in eye disease and cataract surgery. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 1045-1051.

  • Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measurements in clinical trials: choosing the right approach. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 41-48.

  • Ware JE. The SF-36 health survey. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 337-345.

  • Damiano AM. The Sickness Impact Profile. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 347-354.

  • McEwen J, McKenna SP. Nottingham Health Profile. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 281- 286.

  • Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1989; 5(4): 559-575.

  • Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, Fryback DG, Hadorn DC, Kamlet MS, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Russell LB, Seigel JE, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 82-134.

  • Torrance GW. Designing and conducting cost-utility analyses. In: Spilker B, editor.Q uality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 1105-1111.

  • Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, Elkin EP, Washington AE. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Medical Decision Making 1997; 17(1):42- 55.

  • Grau S, Mateu-de Antonio J, Soto J, Marin-Casino M, Salas E. Pharm World Sci. 2005 Dec;27(6): 459-64.

  • Fairman KA, Motheral BR. Do decision-analytic models identify costeffective treatments? A retrospective look at Helicobacter pylori eradication. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003; 9(5): 430-40. Available at: www.amcp.org/data/jmcp/ Formulary%20Management-430-440.pdf.


Abstract Views: 229

PDF Views: 0




  • Pharmacoeconomics and Quality of Life Parameters Impact on Drug Treatment

Abstract Views: 229  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Jatin Patel
Department of Pharmacy, JJT University, Vidyanagari, Churu Jhunjhunu Road, Chudela, District-Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001, India

Abstract


Pharmacoeconomics concerns the application of the methods of economic evaluation of health care programs to interventions involving pharmaceutical products.The purpose of the methods, and the studies, is to help inform programmatic decision-making regarding the appropriateness and availability of health care interventions including drugs. Results of such programmatic decision-making (e.g. formulary listings, clinical guidelines, appropriate prescribing practices) will often impact on treatments for individual patients.The need to use more complete information in decision-making is reflected in the growing number of pharmacoeconomic guideline documents in the literature.Pharmacoeconomic studies compare the costs and consequences of pharmaceutical products with relevant alternatives. These studies are pertinent to the decision-making process when trying to balance additional costs associated with one alternative over another, versus their respective differences in clinical outcome. The overall technical goal of pharmacoeconomics is to identify treatments and drugs which may be worthy of support, such that the overall good that is done is maximized (or equivalently, the opportunity costs incurred are minimized) within the constrained resources available. Pharmacoeconomic studies in their proper role are used to inform decision-making, not to replace it. The studies are not to be used in a thoughtless, mechanistic fashion. They do not replace hard thinking, careful consideration, good judgement and common sense. When properly used and properly qualified, they provide essential information as input into the decision-making process. They are not the only input, however; other considerations such as justice, equity, access, choice and process factors also come into play.

Keywords


Pharmacoeconomics, Health Care Intervention, Programmatic Decision Making, Pharmaceutical Product.

References