Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:53:47.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS IN ITALY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2004

Livio Garattini ,
Paola De Compadri ,
Rosamaria Clemente  and
Dante Cornago
Livio Garattini
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics
Paola De Compadri
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics
Rosamaria Clemente
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics
Dante Cornago
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To review the economic evaluations (EEs) done in Italy by Italian authors, following a common scheme to allow some comparisons of the studies selected and with the international reviews.

Methods: We selected all the original studies published by Italian authors (in Italian or English) in national and international journals. The period considered was January 1994 to December 2001. Both full and partial economic evaluations were included. Three international databases were interrogated: MEDLINE, Embase, and HealthStar; further articles were added from the internal database of our center (CESAV), which also classifies Italian local publications and journals specialized in health economics.

Results: A total of ninety-nine studies were reviewed. More than half of the fifty-seven full EEs focused on drugs as type of intervention (n=38), followed by diagnostic screening (n=7). The NHS viewpoint was the most used (n=55 studies), followed by that of society (n=27) and hospitals (n=12). Sixty-eight studies only analyzed direct costs and twenty-nine included both direct and indirect costs. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight pharmacoeconomic full EEs were sponsored by companies. In sixteen of the twenty-five sponsored studies, the sponsor's products were the dominant alternative.

Conclusions: The review showed that, in Italy, like elsewhere, there is a gap between theory and practice in EEs, and sponsors can considerably affect the results of EEs.

Keywords

Economic evaluationItalyReviewMethodology
Type
RESEARCH NOTES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 685 - 691
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attanasio E, Bruzzi P, Capri S, et al. 1999; Raccomandazioni per la conduzione degli studi di farmacoeconomia: La guida GISF. Mecosan. 29: 65 72.Google Scholar
Colombo GL, Serra G, Terranova L. 2001; Indagine sulla diffusione della farmaeconomia nell'industria farmaceutica che opera in Italia. Pharmacoeconomics. 3: 91 103.Google Scholar
De Pouvourville G. 2000; Changes in health economic data bases. Hepac. 1: 93.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, Jönsson B, Rutten FFH. 1997; The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy. 40: 199 215.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, Dubois D, Garattini L, et al. 1999; Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health. 2: 323 332.Google Scholar
Drummond MF. 1992; Cost of Illness studies. A major headache? Pharmacoeconomics. 2: 1 4.Google Scholar
Drummond MF. 1998; A reappraisal of economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals: Science or Marketing? Pharmacoeconomics. 14: 1 9.Google Scholar
Fattore G, Jommi C. 1998; The new pharmaceutical policy in Italy. Health Policy. 46: 21 41.Google Scholar
Garattini L, Tediosi F, Ghislandi S, Orzella L, Rossi C. 2000; How do Italian pharmacoeconomists evaluate indirect costs. Value Health. 3: 270 276.Google Scholar
Garattini L, Grilli R, Scopelliti D, et al. 1995; A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 7: 1 6.Google Scholar
Garcìa-Altés A. 2001; Twenty years of health care economic analysis in Spain: Are we doing well? Health Econ. 10: 715 729.Google Scholar
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. 2001; Health economic guidelines: Similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 4: 225 250.Google Scholar
Koopmanschap MA. 1998; Cost of illness studies: Useful for health policy? Pharmacoeconomics. 14: 143 148.Google Scholar
Krimsky S. 1999; Conflict of interest and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 282: 1474 1475.Google Scholar
Morgan S, Barer M, Evans R. 2000; Health economists meet the fourth tempter: Drug dependency and scientific discourse. Health Econ. 9: 659 667.Google Scholar
Nixon J, Stoykova B, Glanville J, et al. 2000; The U.K. NHS economic evaluation database. Int J Technol Assess in Health Care. 16: 731 742.Google Scholar
OHE-IFPMA. 1999. Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED). London: Office for Health Economics;
Pritchard C. 2001; What do we know about the economic evaluation literature? A review of HEED. J Drug Assess. 4: 9 20.Google Scholar
Rennie D, Luft H. 2000; Pharmacoeconomic analysis: Making them transparent, making them credible. JAMA. 283: 2158 2160.Google Scholar
Rittenhouse BE. 1996; Is there a need for standardization of methods in economic evaluations of medicines? Med Care. 34: DS13 DS22.Google Scholar
Sloan F. 1995. Valuing health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Società Italiana di FarmacoEconomia (SIFE). 1999; Linee guida per la conduzione di studi sull'efficacia e sul costo dei trattamenti farmacologici. Giornale Farmacoeconomia. 3: 147 153.
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. 1995; Economic analysis of health care technology: A report on principles. Ann Intern Med. 122: 61 70.
Ulmann P. 2000; The CODECS Project. Hepac. 1: 129 130.Google Scholar