Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T19:31:32.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2016

Michael Drummond
University of
Federico Augustovski
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, University of Buenos Aires
Zoltán Kaló
Syreon Research Institute, Department of Health Policy and Health Economics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Bong-Min Yang
School of Public Health, Seoul National University
Andres Pichon-Riviere
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, University of Buenos Aires
Eun-Young Bae
College of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University
Sachin Kamal-Bahl
HTA Strategy, Global Market Access, Merck and Co.


Background: Decision makers in middle-income countries are using economic evaluations (EEs) in pricing and reimbursement decisions for pharmaceuticals. However, whilst many of these jurisdictions have local submission guidelines and local expertise, the studies themselves often use economic models developed elsewhere and elements of data from countries other than the jurisdiction concerned. The objectives of this study were to describe the current situation and to assess the challenges faced by decision makers in transferring data and analyses from other jurisdictions.

Methods: Experienced health service researchers in each region conducted an interview survey of representatives of decision making bodies from jurisdictions in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America that had at least 1 year's experience of using EEs.

Results: Representatives of the relevant organizations in twelve countries were interviewed. All twelve jurisdictions had developed official guidelines for the conduct of EEs. All but one of the organizations evaluated studies submitted to them, but 9 also conducted studies and 7 commissioned them. Nine of the organizations stated that, in evaluating EEs submitted to them, they had consulted a study performed in a different jurisdiction. Data on relevant treatment effect was generally considered more transferable than those on prices/unit costs. Views on the transferability of epidemiological data, data on resource use and health state preference values were more mixed. Eight of the respondents stated that analyses submitted to them had used models developed in other jurisdictions. Four of the organizations had a policy requiring models to be adapted to reflect local circumstances. The main obstacles to transferring EEs were the different patterns of care or wealth of the developed countries from which most economic evaluations originate.

Conclusions: In middle-income countries it is commonplace to deal with the issue of transferring analyses or data from other jurisdictions. Decision makers in these countries face several challenges, mainly due to differences in current standard of care, practice patterns, or gross domestic product between the developed countries where the majority of the studies are conducted and their own jurisdiction

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)



1. Drummond, MF, Twenty years of using economic evaluations for drug reimbursement decisions. What has been achieved? J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:10811102.Google Scholar
2. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Claxton, K, Torrance, GW, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes: Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
3. Tsuchiya, A, Williams, A. Welfare economics and economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, eds. Economic evaluation in health care: Merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
4. Coast, J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values? BMJ. 2004;329:12331236.Google Scholar
5. Shiell, A, Hawe, P, Gold, L. Complex interventions or complex systems. Implications for economic evaluation. BMJ. 2008;336:1281.Google Scholar
6. Drummond, M, Barbieri, M, Cook, J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:409418.Google Scholar
7. Barbieri, M, Drummond, M, Rutten, F, et al. What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability? Value Health. 2010;13:10281037.Google Scholar
8. Caro, JJ, Briggs, AH, Siebert, U, et al. Modeling good research practices - overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Goeree, R, Burke, N, O'Reilly, D, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations: approaches and factors to consider when using results from one geographic area for another. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:671682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Augustovski, F, Iglesias, C, Manca, A, et al. Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:919929.Google Scholar
12. Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F, García Martí, S, Sullivan, SD, Drummond, M. Transferability of health technology assessment reports in Latin America: an exploratory survey of researchers and decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:180186 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jönsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:7178.Google Scholar
14. Drummond, MF, Neumann, PJ, Jönsson, B, et al. Can we reliably benchmark health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:159165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Jansen, JP, Fleurence, R, Devine, B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 1. Value Health. 2011;14:417428.Google Scholar
16. Hoaglin, DC, Hawkins, N, Jansen, JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices—Part 2. Value Health. 2011;14:429437.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Drummond supplementary material S1


Download Drummond supplementary material S1(File)
File 27.4 KB