204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28854927)
1. Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes.
Morrell L; Wordsworth S; Fu H; Rees S; Barker R
BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 Aug; 17(1):613. PubMed ID: 28854927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Access to orphan drugs in western Europe: can more systematic policymaking really help to avoid different decisions about the same drug?
Kanters TA; Hakkaart L; Rutten-van Mölken MP; Redekop WK
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 15(4):557-9. PubMed ID: 25973903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Economic Modeling Considerations for Rare Diseases.
Pearson I; Rothwell B; Olaye A; Knight C
Value Health; 2018 May; 21(5):515-524. PubMed ID: 29753347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Which factors enhance positive drug reimbursement recommendation in Scotland? A retrospective analysis 2006-2013.
Charokopou M; Majer IM; Raad Jd; Broekhuizen S; Postma M; Heeg B
Value Health; 2015 Mar; 18(2):284-91. PubMed ID: 25773564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The impact of rarity in NICE's health technology appraisals.
Clarke S; Ellis M; Brownrigg J
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2021 May; 16(1):218. PubMed ID: 33985575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reimbursement of targeted cancer therapies within 3 different European health care systems.
Mihajlović J; Dolk C; Tolley K; Simoens S; Postma MJ
Clin Ther; 2015 Feb; 37(2):474-80. PubMed ID: 25638534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How much is the life of a cancer patient worth? A pharmaco-economic perspective.
Simoens S; Dooms M
J Clin Pharm Ther; 2011 Jun; 36(3):249-56. PubMed ID: 21545607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Differences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom.
Lozano-Blázquez A; Dickson R; Fraga-Fuentes MD; Martínez-Martínez F; Calleja-Hernández MÁ
Eur J Cancer; 2015 Sep; 51(13):1843-52. PubMed ID: 26119375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The Challenge for Orphan Drugs Remains: Three Case Studies Demonstrating the Impact of Changes to NICE Methods and Processes and Alternative Mechanisms to Value Orphan Products.
Lee D; McCarthy G; Saeed O; Allen R; Malottki K; Chandler F
Pharmacoecon Open; 2023 Mar; 7(2):175-187. PubMed ID: 36315388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric?
Mason A; Drummond M; Ramsey S; Campbell J; Raisch D
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Jul; 28(20):3234-8. PubMed ID: 20498408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.
Nicod E
Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Jul; 18(6):715-730. PubMed ID: 27538758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Association Between the Use of Surrogate Measures in Pivotal Trials and Health Technology Assessment Decisions: A Retrospective Analysis of NICE and CADTH Reviews of Cancer Drugs.
Pinto A; Naci H; Neez E; Mossialos E
Value Health; 2020 Mar; 23(3):319-327. PubMed ID: 32197727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Will the reformed Cancer Drugs Fund address the most common types of uncertainty? An analysis of NICE cancer drug appraisals.
Morrell L; Wordsworth S; Schuh A; Middleton MR; Rees S; Barker RW
BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 May; 18(1):393. PubMed ID: 29855313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prevalence of Immature Survival Data for Anti-Cancer Drugs Presented to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Impact on Decision Making.
Tai TA; Latimer NR; Benedict Á; Kiss Z; Nikolaou A
Value Health; 2021 Apr; 24(4):505-512. PubMed ID: 33840428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.
MacLeod TE; Harris AH; Mahal A
Patient; 2016 Jun; 9(3):201-22. PubMed ID: 26370257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Cancer Drugs Fund in Practice and Under the New Framework.
Sabry-Grant C; Malottki K; Diamantopoulos A
Pharmacoeconomics; 2019 Jul; 37(7):953-962. PubMed ID: 30941698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and its role in assessing the value of new cancer treatments in England and Wales.
Trowman R; Chung H; Longson C; Littlejohns P; Clark P
Clin Cancer Res; 2011 Aug; 17(15):4930-5. PubMed ID: 21791636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Competing for public funding of medicines to treat rare disorders in New Zealand.
Crausaz S
Bull World Health Organ; 2015 Feb; 93(2):67. PubMed ID: 25883396
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries.
Efthymiadou O; Kanavos P
BMC Health Serv Res; 2022 Aug; 22(1):1066. PubMed ID: 35987627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
