Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27473640›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2016

The Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation Process in Ireland.

Laura McCullagh, Michael Barry

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Expanding health technology assessment towards broader value: Ireland as a case study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Cost-effectiveness evidence on approved cancer drugs in Ireland: the limits of data availability and implications for public accountability.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A retrospective analysis of budget impact models submitted to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura McCullaghDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, St James's University Teaching Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland. mcculllm@tcd.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-8342-8739
Michael BarryDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, St James's University Teaching Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Ireland, all new drugs are considered for a formal pharmacoeconomic evaluation (PE) prior to a reimbursement decision. All evaluations are conducted by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE). The objectives of this study were to describe the evaluation process and to examine the movement of drugs through the process.

methodsThe movement of all drugs submitted to the NCPE (from January 2010 to December 2015 inclusive) was investigated.

resultsA total of 230 Rapid Review submissions (each pertaining to one drug for one indication) were made. The Rapid Review process determines the requirement for a full PE. A full PE was deemed unnecessary in 108 cases (47 %). A positive reimbursement recommendation was made in 100 of these (a price reductions was advised in 25 cases and a recommendation to restrict/monitor usage was made in 35). The requirement for a full PE was recognised in 122 cases (53 %). In 12, subsequent payer-led price negotiations negated the requirement for a full PE, and reimbursement was recommended. In 24 cases, a timely full submission was not made; cost effectiveness could not be established. Fifteen interventions are currently going through the submission process. To date, 71 full PEs have been completed by the NCPE. Reimbursement was recommended in 19 and was not recommended in eight. Reimbursement was not recommended 'at the submitted price' in 44. Of these, reimbursement was subsequently approved in 34 (77 %) following price negotiations. To date, negotiations are on-going in a further six cases. In all, negotiations have been informed by the NCPE. A negative recommendation was reached in the remaining four.

conclusionsOver the study period, the NCPE evaluated 230 drugs for which reimbursement was sought. In total, a positive reimbursement recommendation has been made in 165 cases (72 % of all drugs submitted, or 79 % when drugs currently undergoing the process are excluded). A price reduction was deemed necessary in 71 (43 %) of the 165 cases, and a recommendation to restrict/monitor usage was made in 35 cases (21 %).

Indexed as

Economics, PharmaceuticalReimbursement MechanismsCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisDecision MakingHealth PolicyHumansIrelandPharmaceutical PreparationsPublic HealthPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.