Pharmacoeconomics and health economics in drug policy: a comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56782/pps.544Keywords:
Pharmacoeconomics, Health Economics, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Budget Impact Analysis, Health PolicyAbstract
Increasing healthcare expenditures, aging populations, the rising prevalence of chronic diseases, and the emergence of high-cost pharmaceutical innovations have underscored the urgent need for efficient and evidence-based resource allocation in healthcare systems. As a response to these challenges, health economics and pharmacoeconomics have emerged as essential disciplines for informing policy development and clinical decision-making. This review systematically explores the fundamental principles of health economics and pharmacoeconomics, with a focus on evaluating key analytical approaches such as cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-minimization, and budget impact analyses. Drawing on data from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and national health institutions, the study highlights real-world applications and cross-national comparisons of these methods. The findings reveal significant regional differences in the integration of pharmacoeconomic evaluations into drug reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) processes. Moreover, the review identifies key challenges in implementation, including disparities in data quality, methodological transparency, and institutional capacity. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that pharmacoeconomic evaluations are indispensable for shaping sustainable, equitable, and patient-centered healthcare systems across the globe.
Downloads
References
1. Walley, T.; Breckenridge, A. Pharmacoeconomics comes of age? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 84, 279-280. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2008.122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2008.122
2. Mahendrakar, A.; Ajja, H.; Sinwal, A.; Jain, P. Pharmacoeconomics in healthcare. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2024, 9, 1102-1107. DOI: 10.38124/ijisrt/ijisrt24mar1293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24MAR1293
3. Tonin, F.; Aznar-Lou, I.; Pontinha, V.; Pontarolo, R.; Fernandez-Llimos, F. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis: The case of pharmacist-led interventions. Pharm. Pract. 2021, 19(1), Art. No: 2302. DOI: 10.18549/PharmPract.2021.1.2302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2021.1.2302
4. Carswell, C. Essentials of pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26, 1065–1067. DOI: 10.2165/0019053-200826120-00008
5. Froemming, S.; Cold, J.; Wells, B. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in medicine. Ann. Pharmacother. 1989, 23, 431–431. DOI: 10.1177/106002808902300517 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808902300517
6. Reeder, C. Overview of pharmacoeconomics and pharmaceutical outcomes evaluations. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 1995, 52 (Suppl. 4), S5–S8. DOI: 10.1093/AJHP/52.19_SUPPL_4.S5
7. Muennig, P.; Bounthavong, M. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health: A practical approach, John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–480.
8. Mauskopf, J.; Annemans, L. Budget impact analysis. In Pharmacoeconomics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020, pp. 137–152. DOI:10.1201/9780429491368-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429491368-8
9. Yumrukaya, L.; Postma, P.; Sözen-Şahne, B.; Yeğenoğlu, P. Recommendations on pharmacoeconomic guidelines for Turkey considering reference countries: A scoping review. Health Policy Technol. 2022, 11, Art. No: 100682. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100682
10. O’Brien, B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein’s monster or vampire of trials? Med. Care 1996, 34, DS99-108.
11. Mori, A.; Gavaza, P.; Robberstad, B. Role of pharmacoeconomics in developing countries. Farmeconomia. Health Econ. Ther. Pathw. 2013, 14(1), 3–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7175/fe.v14i1.638
12. Henry, D.; Lopert, R. Pharmacoeconomics and policy decisions: The Australian health care system. Clin. Ther. 1999, 21(5), 909–915. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2918(99)80012-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(99)80012-5
13. Führlinger, S. Relevance of pharmacoeconomic analyses to price and reimbursement decisions in Austria. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2006, 156(23–24), 612–618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10354-006-0357-7
14. Cleemput, I.; Van Wilder, P.; Huybrechts, M.; Vrijens, F. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: Toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health 2009, 12(4), 441–449. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00469.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00469.x
15. Franken, M.; Nilsson, F.; Sandmann, F.; Boer, A.; Koopmanschap, M. Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: A comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31, 781–797. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0074-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0074-1
16. Garrison, P.; Neumann, S.; Erickson, P.; Marshall, P.; Mullins, P. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 2007, 10(5), 326–335. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x
17. Meltzer, M. Introduction to health economics for physicians. Lancet 2001, 358, 993–998. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06107-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06107-4
18. Hensher, M. Climate change, health and sustainable healthcare: The role of health economics. Health Econ. 2023, 32(5), 983-1201. DOI: 10.1002/hec.4656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4656
19. Lange, S.; Vollmer, S. The effect of economic development on population health: A review of the empirical evidence. Br. Med. Bull. 2017, 121, 47–60. DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldw052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldw052
20. Spiteri, J.; von Brockdorff, P. Economic development and health outcomes: Evidence from cardiovascular disease mortality in Europe. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 224, 37–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.050
21. Sculpher, M.; Claxton, K.; Pearson, S. Developing a value framework: The need to reflect the opportunity costs of funding decisions. Value Health 2017, 20(2), 234–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.021
22. Ochalek, J.; Lomas, J.; Claxton, K. Estimating health opportunity costs in low- and middle-income countries: A novel approach and evidence from cross-country data. BMJ Glob. Health 2018, 3, Art. No: e000964. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000964 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000964
23. Cookson, R.; Propper, C.; Asaria, M.; Raine, R. Socio-economic inequalities in health care in England. Fiscal Stud. 2016, 37, 371–403. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12109.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12109
24. Dickman, S.; Himmelstein, D.; Woolhandler, S. Inequality and the health-care system in the USA. Lancet 2017, 389, 1431–1441. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30398-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30398-7
25. Johar, M.; Soewondo, P.; Pujisubekti, R.; Satrio, H.; Adji, A. Inequality in access to health care, health insurance and the role of supply factors. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 213, 134–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.044
26. McIntyre, D.; Meheus, F.; Røttingen, J. What level of domestic government health expenditure should we aspire to for universal health coverage? Health Econ. Policy Law 2017, 12, 125–137. DOI: 10.1017/S1744133116000414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133116000414
27. Mahumud, R.A.; Alam, K.; Dunn, J.; Gow, J. The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia. PLoS ONE 2019, 14(10), Art. No: e0223658. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223658 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223658
28. Babela, R.; Orsagh, A.; Ricova, J.; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I.; Csanadi, M.; de Koning, H.; Reckova, M. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Slovakia. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2022, 31(5), 415–421. DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000727 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000727
29. Reeves, P.; Edmunds, K.; Searles, A.; Wiggers, J. Economic evaluations of public health implementation interventions: A systematic review and guideline for practice. Public Health 2019, 169, 101–113. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.01.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2019.01.012
30. Organised by EUPHA-ECO; EUPHA-HTA. 4th Workshop: Economic evaluations of public health interventions: From case studies to next methodological steps. Eur. J. Public Health 2022, 32(Suppl. 3), ckac129–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac129.234
31. Roberts, S.L.E.; Healey, A.; Sevdalis, N. Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields: A systematic literature review. Implement. Sci. 2019, 14(1), Art. No: 72. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7
32. Frew, E.; Breheny, K. Methods for public health economic evaluation: A Delphi survey of decision makers in English and Welsh local government. Health Econ. 2019, 28(8), 1052–1063. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3916 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3916
33. Reeder, C. Overview of pharmacoeconomics and pharmaceutical outcomes evaluations. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 1995, 52 (Suppl. 4), S5–S8. DOI: 10.1093/AJHP/52.19_SUPPL_4.S5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/52.19_Suppl_4.S5
34. Arenas-Guzmán, R.; Tosti, A.; Hay, R.; Haneke, E. Pharmacoeconomics: An aid to better decision-making. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2005, 19, 34-39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2005.01285.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2005.01285.x
35. Carswell, C. Essentials of pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26, 1065–1067. DOI: 10.2165/0019053-200826120-00008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/0019053-200826120-00008
36. Gold, M.R.; Stevenson, D.; Fryback, D.G. HALYs and QALYs and DALYs, Oh My: Similarities and differences in summary measures of population health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2002, 23(1), 115–134. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140513
37. Rios-Diaz, A.J.; Lam, J.; Ramos, M.S.; Moscoso, A.V.; Vaughn, P.; Zogg, C.K.; Caterson, E.J. Global patterns of QALY and DALY use in surgical cost-utility analyses: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2016, 11(2), Art. No: e0148304. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148304
38. Robinson, L.A. Ethics and benefit–cost analysis: Introduction to the special issue. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 2024, 15(S1), 1–5. DOI: 10.1017/bca.2025.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2025.1
39. Hansson, S.O. Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Econ. Philos. 2007, 23(2), 163–183. DOI: 10.1017/S0266267107001356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267107001356
40. Kelman, S. Cost-benefit analysis: An ethical critique. In Readings in Risk; RFF Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; pp. 129–138.
41. Rowell, A. Ethical choices inside regulatory cost-benefit analysis. Geo. J.L. Public Policy 2021, 19, 693–715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3944299
42. Briggs, A.H.; O’Brien, B.J. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001, 10(2), 179–184. DOI: 10.1002/hec.584 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.584
43. Hughes, D. Pharmacoeconomics. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2012, 73(6), 968–972. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04247.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04247.x
44. Gamal, M.; Sedrak, A.; Elsisi, G.; Elagamy, A.; Seyam, A.; Eldebeiky, M.; Eldessoki, R. National recommendations for pharmacoeconomic evaluations reporting for reimbursement and procurement of new pharmaceutical applications in Egypt. Glob. J. Qual. Saf. Healthc. 2024, 7, 216–223. DOI: 10.36401/JQSH-24-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36401/JQSH-24-12
45. Angelis, A.; Lange, A.; Kanavos, P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: Results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2017, 19, 123–152. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0871-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0871-0
46. Marušáková, E.; Bielik, J. Application of health technology assessment and pharmacoeconomics in the decision-making process in selected EU member states. Value Health 2013, 16, Art. No: e1994. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.1994 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.1994
47. Sharma, D.; Aggarwal, A.; Downey, L.; Prinja, S. National healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: A cross-country comparison. Pharmacoeconomics Open 2021, 5, 349–364. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00250-7
48. Yang, B. The future of health technology assessment in healthcare decision making in Asia. Pharmacoeconomics 2012, 27, 891–901. DOI: 10.2165/11310280-000000000-00000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11310280-000000000-00000
49. Tilson, L.; O’Leary, A.; Usher, C.; Barry, M. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Ireland. Pharmacoeconomics 2012, 28, 307–322. DOI: 10.2165/11318790-000000000-00000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11318790-000000000-00000
50. Lamrock, F.; McCullagh, L.; Tilson, L.; Barry, M. A retrospective analysis of budget impact models submitted to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2020, 21, 895–901. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01181-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01181-0
51. Eandi, M. The importance of the pharmacoeconomic analyses in drug negotiation: A farewell editorial. Farmeconomia. Health Econ. Ther. Pathw. 2023, Art. No: e1547. DOI: 10.7175/fe.v24i1.1547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7175/fe.v24i1.1547
52. Oral, M.; Özçelikay, G. Ethical overview of pharmaceutical industry policies in Turkey from various perspectives. Turk. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 14, 264–273. DOI: 10.4274/TJPS.88598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4274/tjps.88598
53. Main, C.; Schäfer, C.; Kanavos, P. From vision to reality: The EU’s pharmaceutical reforms and the path to improved access. Pharmacoeconomics Open 2025, 9(3), 331–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00556-w
54. Martins, S.F.; van Mil, J.F.; da Costa, F.A. The organizational framework of community pharmacies in Europe. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2015, 37(5), 896–905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0140-1
55. Kriegner, S.; Ottersen, T.; Røttingen, J.A.; Gopinathan, U. Promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluations of public health interventions: Insights from key informants in six European countries. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2020, 10(2), Art. No: 67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.19
56. Alzarea, A.; Khan, Y.; Alanazi, A.; Butt, M.; Almalki, Z.; Alahmari, A.; Alsahali, S.; Mallhi, T. Barriers and facilitators of pharmacoeconomic studies: A review of evidence from the Middle Eastern countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, Art. No: 7862. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137862 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137862
57. Drummond, M.; Banta, D. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2009, 25, 178–181. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309090618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309090618
58. Akehurst, R. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health 2010, 13(Suppl. 1), S4–S5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00745.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00745.x
59. Anderson, M.; Drummond, M.; Taylor, D.; McGuire, A.; Carter, P.; Mossialos, E. Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK’s approach to health technology assessment. Health Policy 2022, 126(3), 224-233. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.01.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.01.013
60. Li, Y.; Mai, H.; Trudeau, M.; Mittmann, N.; Chiasson, K.; Chan, K.; Cheung, M. Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada. Curr. Oncol. 2020, 27(5), e495–e500. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e14133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3747/co.27.6489
61. Meyers, D.; Jenei, K.; Chisamore, T.; Gyawali, B. Evaluation of the clinical benefit of cancer drugs submitted for reimbursement recommendation decisions in Canada. JAMA Intern. Med. 2021, 181(4), 499-508. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8588 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8588
62. Gülmez, S.; Aydın, V.; Akıcı, A. Footprints of clinical pharmacology in Turkey: Past, present, and future. Clin. Ther. 2020, 42(2), 351-362. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.12.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.12.014
63. Fischer, K.; Stargardt, T. Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany. Med. Decis. Making 2014, 34, 1030–1047. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14546377 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14546377
64. Macaulay, R.; Mohamoud, Z. Increasing divergence of IQWiG and G-BA benefit assessments over time. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2019, 35, 86–86. DOI: 10.1017/S026646231900312X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646231900312X
65. Jakovljevic, M. Comparison of historical medical spending patterns among the BRICS and G7. J. Med. Econ. 2016, 19, 70–76. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1093493 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1093493
66. Tsak, A.; Chang, A.; Cowling, K.; Micah, A.; Chapin, A.; et al. Past, present, and future of global health financing: A review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995–2050. Lancet 2019, 393, 2233–2260. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30841-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30841-4
67. Zhao, Y.; Feng, H.; Qu, J.; Luo, X.; Tian, J. A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. J. Med. Econ. 2018, 21, 85–96. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1387118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1387118
68. van Dongen, J.; Alili, E.; Varga, A.; Morel, A.; Ben, A.; Khorrami, M.; van Tulder, M.; Bosmans, J. What do national pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommend regarding the statistical analysis of trial-based economic evaluations? Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2019, 20, 27–37. DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1694410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2020.1694410
69. Mason, J.; Mason, A. The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies: Issues and challenges ahead. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24(10), 937–945. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624100-00001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624100-00001
70. Dubois, D. Grand challenges in pharmacoeconomics and health outcomes. Front. Pharmacol. 2010, 1, Art. No: 7. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2010.00007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2010.00007
71. Gianfrancesco, F.; Wang, R.; Mahmoud, R.; White, R. Methods for claims-based pharmacoeconomic studies in psychosis. Pharmacoeconomics 2012, 20, 499–511. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200220080-00001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220080-00001
72. Cookson, R.; Drummond, M.; Weatherly, H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ. Policy Law 2009, 4, 231–245. DOI: 10.1017/S1744133109004903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133109004903
73. Ward, T.; Mújica-Mota, R.; Spencer, A.; Medina-Lara, A. Incorporating equity concerns in cost-effectiveness analyses: A systematic literature review. Pharmacoeconomics 2021, 40, 45–64. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01094-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01094-7
74. Rojewski, A.; Bailey, S.; Bernstein, S.; Cooperman, N.; Gritz, E.; Karam-Hage, M.; Piper, M.; Rigotti, N.; Warren, G. Considering systemic barriers to treating tobacco use in clinical settings in the United States. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2018, 21(11), 1453-1461 DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nty123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty123
75. Garg, A.; Panda, P.; Neudecker, M.; Lee, S. Barriers to the access and utilization of healthcare for trafficked youth: A systematic review. Child Abuse Negl. 2020, 100, Art. No: 104137. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104137
76. Mullins, D.; Onwudiwe, N.; de Araújo, G.; Chen, W.; Xuan, J.; Tichopád, A.; Hu, S. Guidance document: Global pharmacoeconomic model adaptation strategies. Value Health Reg. Issues 2014, 5, 7–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2014.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2014.02.006
77. Yagudina, R.; Kulikov, A.; Serpik, V.; Borodin, A.; Vygodchikova, I. Patient flows, patient distribution computations and medicines accounting in the pharmacoeconomic models through procurement perspective. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 2021, 13, 673–680. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S312986 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S312986
78. Brodtmann, A.; Darby, D.; Oboudiyat, C.; Mahoney, C.J.; Le Heron, C.; Panegyres, P.K.; Brew, B. Assessing preparedness for Alzheimer disease-modifying therapies in Australasian health care systems. Med. J. Aust. 2023, 218(6), 247-249. doi: 10.5694/mja2.51880 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51880
79. Heidebrink, J.L.; Paulson, H.L. Lessons learned from approval of aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease. Annu. Rev. Med. 2024, 75(1), 99–111. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-051022-043645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-051022-043645
80. Thussu, S.; Naidu, A.; Manivannan, S.; Grossberg, G.T. Profiling aducanumab as a treatment option for Alzheimer’s disease: An overview of efficacy, safety and tolerability. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2024, 24(11), 1045–1053. DOI: 10.1080/14737175.2024.2402058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2024.2402058
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mehmet Ali Yüzbaşıoğlu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
For all articles published in Prospects in Pharmaceutical Sciences copyright is retained by the authors. The journal publishes articles in the Open Access policy, within the CC BY 4.0 licence.
This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. Disclaimer.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
How to Cite
