Careful use of science to advance the debate on the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.
作者信息
Lakdawalla Darius N, Jena Anupam B, Doctor Jason N
机构信息
Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts3Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston4National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
出版信息
JAMA. 2014 Jan 1;311(1):25-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282839.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Careful use of science to advance the debate on the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.谨慎运用科学推动关于英国癌症药物基金的辩论。
JAMA. 2014 Jan 1;311(1):25-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282839.
2
UK Cancer Drugs Fund to reassess 42 agents.英国癌症药物基金将重新评估42种药物。
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):e8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71137-4. Epub 2014 Nov 21.
3
Most drugs paid for by £1.27bn Cancer Drugs Fund had no "meaningful benefit".由12.7亿英镑癌症药物基金支付费用的大多数药物都没有“显著疗效”。
BMJ. 2017 Apr 28;357:j2097. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2097.
4
Which way now for the Cancer Drugs Fund?癌症药物基金的未来何去何从？
BMJ. 2014 Sep 9;349:g5524. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5524.
5
The New and Non-Transparent Cancer Drugs Fund.新型非透明癌症药物基金。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Jan;38(1):1-4. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00871-9.
6
Cancer Drugs Fund of minimal benefit.疗效甚微的癌症药物基金。
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):e305. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30322-4. Epub 2017 May 5.
7
New NICE criteria for drug access.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）关于药物获取的新准则。
Lancet Oncol. 2017 May;18(5):576. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30235-8. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
8
Calling time on the Cancer Drugs Fund? Funding the NHS in the age of austerity.叫停癌症药物基金？在财政紧缩时代为国民医疗服务体系提供资金。
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2015 Apr;76(4):186-7. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2015.76.4.186.
9
Cancer drugs offer hope, but at huge expense.抗癌药物带来了希望，但费用高昂。
N Y Times Web. 2005 Jul 12:A1, C3.
10
Pfizer to make palbociclib temporarily free on NHS.辉瑞公司将在英国国家医疗服务体系（NHS）中暂时免费提供哌柏西利。
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):e309. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30343-1. Epub 2017 May 11.
引用本文的文献
1
Scoping Review of International Experience of a Dedicated Fund to Support Patient Access to Cancer Drugs: Policy Implications for Thailand.支持患者获取抗癌药物专项基金的国际经验范围审查：对泰国的政策影响
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:7768. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7768. Epub 2024 Jan 28.
2
Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population.新型抗癌药物性价比高吗？肿瘤学家、医疗保健政策制定者、患者及普通大众的观点。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Dec 18;10:1-7. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S93760. eCollection 2016.
本文引用的文献
1
Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain.英国成年人对 NICE、癌症药物基金以及基于价值的药物优先排序定价标准的看法：一项对 4118 名成年人的横断面调查。
Health Econ. 2013 Aug;22(8):948-64. doi: 10.1002/hec.2872. Epub 2012 Sep 7.
2
How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies.癌症患者如何看待希望，以及对高价癌症疗法成本效益评估的影响。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Apr;31(4):676-82. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1300.
3
Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.转移性非小细胞肺癌患者的早期姑息治疗。
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):733-42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678.
4
Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue?临终时癌症治疗的激进程度：这是一个医疗质量问题吗？
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 10;26(23):3860-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8253.
5
Are regional variations in end-of-life care intensity explained by patient preferences?: A Study of the US Medicare Population.临终关怀强度的地区差异是否可以通过患者偏好来解释？：一项关于美国医疗保险人群的研究。
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5):386-93. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000255248.79308.41.
6
Risk attitude in gambles with years of life: empirical support for prospect theory.涉及寿命年限的赌博中的风险态度：对前景理论的实证支持。
Med Decis Making. 1994 Apr-Jun;14(2):194-200. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9401400213.
7
Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public.对化疗的态度：比较癌症患者与医生、护士及普通公众的观点。
BMJ. 1990 Jun 2;300(6737):1458-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458.
Zotero 插件