93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29753347)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review.
Meregaglia M; Nicod E; Drummond M
Eur J Health Econ; 2023 Sep; 24(7):1151-1216. PubMed ID: 36335234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Flexibility in assessment of rare disease technologies via NICE's single technology appraisal route: a thematic analysis.
Hale G; Morris J; Barker-Yip J
J Comp Eff Res; 2023 Nov; 12(11):e230093. PubMed ID: 37724717
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Evolution of a cost-utility model of donepezil for Alzheimer's disease.
Peters JL; Anderson R; Hoyle M; Hyde C
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2013 Apr; 29(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 23514698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
Charlton V
J Med Ethics; 2022 Feb; 48(2):118-125. PubMed ID: 33685978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Involving patients in reducing decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs: a rare opportunity?
Menon D; Stafinski T; Dunn A; Short H
Patient; 2015 Feb; 8(1):29-39. PubMed ID: 25516506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Effects of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's technology appraisals on prescribing and net ingredient costs of drugs in the National Health Service in England.
Dietrich ES
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 19619344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Health technology assessment of drugs for rare diseases: insights, trends, and reasons for negative recommendations from the CADTH common drug review.
Janoudi G; Amegatse W; McIntosh B; Sehgal C; Richter T
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 Dec; 11(1):164. PubMed ID: 27908281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using whole disease modeling to inform resource allocation decisions: economic evaluation of a clinical guideline for colorectal cancer using a single model.
Tappenden P; Chilcott J; Brennan A; Squires H; Glynne-Jones R; Tappenden J
Value Health; 2013 Jun; 16(4):542-53. PubMed ID: 23796288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme.
Alshreef A; Jenks M; Green W; Dixon S
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Dec; 14(6):623-634. PubMed ID: 27480537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of acute stroke events: a review and summary of challenges.
Earnshaw SR; Wilson M; Mauskopf J; Joshi AV
Value Health; 2009 Jun; 12(4):507-20. PubMed ID: 19900253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders.
Schlander M; Garattini S; Holm S; Kolominsky-Rabas P; Nord E; Persson U; Postma M; Richardson J; Simoens S; de Solà Morales O; Tolley K; Toumi M
J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Jul; 3(4):399-422. PubMed ID: 25275236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force.
Sullivan SD; Mauskopf JA; Augustovski F; Jaime Caro J; Lee KM; Minchin M; Orlewska E; Penna P; Rodriguez Barrios JM; Shau WY
Value Health; 2014; 17(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 24438712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
