Show simple item record

hal.structure.identifierLaboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine [LEDa]
dc.contributor.authorLévy, Pierre
HAL ID: 10931
*
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-17T09:40:21Z
dc.date.available2013-12-17T09:40:21Z
dc.date.issued2002
dc.identifier.issn0013-9580
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/12303
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectEpilepsy
dc.subjectCost of illness
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness
dc.subjectCost-utility
dc.subjectEconomic evaluation
dc.subjectAnticonvulsants
dc.subjectMedical care costs
dc.subject.ddc334en
dc.subject.classificationjelI.I1.I12en
dc.titleEconomic Evaluation of Antiepileptic Drug Therapy: A Methodologic Review
dc.typeArticle accepté pour publication ou publié
dc.description.abstractenSummary: Purpose: The increasing number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) fostered the development of economic studies in epilepsy. We reviewed this literature to identify and discuss methodologic issues. Methods: We included all studies devoted to cost-based evaluation in epilepy, published in English from 1989 to 2001, and identified via a Medline search. Results: We identified a series of methodologic problems. First, we reconsidered heterogeneity of concepts and estimating methods, often cited as the most critical problem, as they do not necessarily result from a failure to apply standard methods. One must distinguish “natural” sources of heterogeneity arising from the many unconstrained choices left open in the implementation of economic evaluation on the one hand, and imperfect information and observation-based sources of heterogeneity leading to constrained choices on the other hand. By their very nature, cost-of-illness studies are subject to this variety of choices and were used to illustrate our purpose. Second, cost-minimization studies were reviewed, as they raise additional problems related to study design and choice of an outcome measure. Finally, deficiencies were also identified in cost-effectiveness and cost–utility studies concerning attempts to incorporate patient's point of view in outcome measurement. Conclusions: We agreed with previous reviews on the difficulty of compare results from economic studies in epilepsy due to heterogeneity in methods and concepts used. This is partly due to imperfect information and limits in observation as sources for data collection, as well as to unavailability of refined outcome measures. Therefore, improvements are possible in this field
dc.relation.isversionofjnlnameEpilepsia
dc.relation.isversionofjnlvol43
dc.relation.isversionofjnlissue5
dc.relation.isversionofjnldate2002
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpages550-558
dc.relation.isversionofdoi10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.46401.x
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpublisherE. Munksgaard
dc.subject.ddclabelEconomie socialeen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.relation.forthcomingprintnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenon
dc.description.halcandidateoui
dc.description.readershiprecherche
dc.description.audienceInternational
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewedoui
dc.date.updated2016-03-25T14:19:14Z
hal.identifierhal-01293849*
hal.version1*
hal.update.actionupdateMetadata*
hal.author.functionaut


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record