PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 169–174 | Cite as

Methodological and Conduct Principles for Pharmacoeconomic Research

  • Kevan Clemens
  • Raymond Townsend
  • Faye Luscombe
  • Josephine Mauskopf
  • Jane Osterhaus
  • Joel Bobula
Special Article

Summary

In January 1995, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) adopted a voluntary set of principles to provide guidance for its member companies on the conduct and evaluation of pharmacoeconomic research. The principles were prepared by a working group of pharmacoeconomic scientists from the PhRMA Task Force on the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. The principles were reviewed by a panel of academic experts and outside reviewers at each stage of their development.

The PhRMA document consists of a set of broad principles that will foster high quality pharmacoeconomic research without impeding further methodological development of the field. Specific recommendations are offered in those methodological areas for which general agreement exists. However, no attempt was made to force a consensus for those methodological issues which have yet to be resolved.

The principles address methodology and reporting of research rather than sponsor-investigator relationships or conflict of interest issues, which have been addressed elsewhere. This approach is based on the belief that the scientific integrity of pharmacoeconomic research is best ensured through the soundness of the research methods used and the full disclosure and transparency of all methods, analyses and results.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Coordinating Office on Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, et al. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in healthcare: practice, problems, and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9 (1): 26–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7 (4): 561–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond ME. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? PharmacoEconornics 1992; 1 (1): 8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 1 (1): 20–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luce BR, Simpson K. Methods of cost effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Report prepared for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, April 22, 1993Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luce BR. Cost-effectiveness analysis: obstacles to standardisation and its use in regulating pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics 1993; 3 (1): 1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bootman JL, Larson LN, McGhan WF, et al. Pharmacoeconomic research and clinical trials: concepts and issues. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1989; 23: 693–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maynard A. The design of future cost-benefit studies. Am Heart J 1990; 199: 761–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Jonsson B. Economic evaluation of drug therapy: a review of the contingent valuation method. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 1 (5): 325–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262 (20): 2879–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 (19): 1362–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1994Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kassirer J, Angell M. The Journal’s policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (8): 885–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerbarg ZB, Horwitz RI. Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41 (5): 503–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hall JA, Roter DL, Katz NR. Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters. Med Care 1988; 26 (7): 657–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jenicek M. Meta-analysis in medicine: where we are and where we want to go. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42 (1): 35–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316 (8): 450–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thacker SB. Meta-analysis: a quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA 1988; 259 (11): 1685–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johannesson M. The Australian guidelines for subsidisation of pharmaceuticals: the road to cost-effective drug prescribing? PharmacoEconomics 1992; 2 (5): 355–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henry D. The Australian guidelines for subsidisation of pharmaceuticals [letter]. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 2 (5): 422–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartzema AG, Porta MS, Tilson HH. Pharmacoepidemiology: an introduction. 2nd ed. Cincinnati (OH): Harvey Whitney Books, 1991Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevan Clemens
    • 1
  • Raymond Townsend
    • 2
  • Faye Luscombe
    • 3
  • Josephine Mauskopf
    • 4
  • Jane Osterhaus
    • 2
  • Joel Bobula
    • 5
  1. 1.Roche PharmaceuticalsPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Glaxo Inc., Research Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Parke-DavisAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle ParkUSA
  5. 5.Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)Washington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations