Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Evaluations in Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Critical Review of Measures Used to Define Health States

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We reviewed the clinical measures used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) economic evaluations with respect to their relevance and sensitivity to changes in survival, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and costs. We compared the measures from the economic perspective and discussed the validity of methods used to extrapolate beyond the trial data. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and NHS EED databases. Studies were retained if they extrapolated beyond randomized controlled trial evidence using relationships between clinical measures, costs and utilities.

In the 22 studies identified, clinical severity was measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, the Disease Activity Score (DAS) or a combination of the HAQ and DAS. The HAQ is correlated with mortality, costs and HR-QOL instruments, and several studies used linear relationships to model these associations. However, a polynomial relationship or discrete states may be more appropriate for patients at the extremes of the disease spectrum, and numerous HAQ health states may be required to capture differences in mortality risk. While the ACR response criteria is a more comprehensive measure than the HAQ, it is a relative measure, which creates difficulties when estimating absolute changes in HR-QOL, costs and mortality risk. The evidence base linking DAS scores with HR-QOL instruments, costs and mortality is less robust, possibly due to the comparatively recent development of the measure and the limited number of possible scores (mild/moderate/severe). While there is some evidence of a relationship between DAS scores and costs, the DAS does not capture all aspects of HR-QOL, and no significant relationship has been established with mortality risk.

Evidence suggests the HAQ to be the primary clinical measure for use in economic evaluations as it is measured in almost all clinical studies, and is closely correlated to health utilities, mortality and costs. While new developments suggest the sensitivity of health states may be improved by combining the HAQ with measures such as the DAS, further research is required in this area. Further research is also required to explore the advantages in using either continuous or discrete health states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Symmons D, Turner G, Webb R, et al. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom: new estimates for a new century. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002 Jul; 41 (7): 793–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yelin E, Callahan LF. The economic cost and social and psychological impact of musculoskeletal conditions. National Arthritis Data Work Groups. Arthritis Rheum 1995 Oct; 38 (10): 1351–1362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pincus T, Callahan LF. The ’side effects’ of rheumatoid arthritis: joint destruction, disability and early mortality. Br J Rheumatol 1993 Mar; 32 Suppl. 1: 28–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Gefeller O, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Jun; 48 (6): 1530–1542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kvien TK. Epidemiology and burden of illness of rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (2 Suppl.): 1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Dell JR. Therapeutic strategies for rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2004 Jun 17; 350 (25): 2591–2602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Michaud K, Messer J, Choi HK, et al. Direct medical costs and their predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a three-year study of 7,527 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Oct; 48 (10): 2750–2762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sorensen J, Andersen LS. The case of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (3): 289–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Access to anti-TNF alpha therapies for adults with inflammatory arthritis: a report by the British Society for Rheumatology and the Arthritis & Musculoskeletal Alliance, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rheumatology.org.uk/public_affairs/armabsrtnfsurvey [Accessed 2008 19 Mar]

  10. Moreland LW. Biologic therapies on the horizon for rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Rheumatol 2004 Jun; 10 (3 Suppl.): S32–S39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Drammond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford (NY): Oxford University Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  12. Karnon J, Brennan A, Akehurst R. A critique and impact analysis of decision modeling assumption. Med Decis Making 2007; 27 (4): 491–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: The Office, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  14. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee [PBAC] (version 4.2) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/pbacguidelines-index [Accessed 2008 Apr 11]

  15. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  16. Briggs AH. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bansback NJ, Regier DA, Ara R, et al. An overview of economic evaluations for drags used in rheumatoid arthritis: focus on tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonists. Drags 2005; 65 (4): 473–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Karnon J. Cost-effectiveness of letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for early breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes 2007; 7 (2): 143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Singh A, et al. Cost effectiveness of etanercept (Enbrel) in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis based on the TEMPO trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2005 Aug; 64 (8): 1174–1179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Young A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (Remicade) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003 Feb; 42 (2): 326–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brennan A, Bansback N, Reynolds A, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004 Jan; 43 (1): 62–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bansback NJ, Brennan A, Ghatnekar O. Cost effectiveness of adaliraumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 2005 Jul; 64 (7): 995–1002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wailoo AJ, Bansback N, Brennan A, et al. Biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in the Medicare program: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2008 Mar 27; 58 (4): 939–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brennan A, Bansback NJ, Nixon RM, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of TNF alpha antagonists in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologies Registry. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 16 (8): 1345–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004 May; 8 (18): iii–iv, ix-x, 1-105

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, et al. The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6 (21): 1–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess 2006 Nov; 10 (42): iii–iv, xi-xiii, 1-229

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Welsing PM, Severens JL, Hartman M, et al. Modeling the 5-year cost effectiveness of treatment strategies including tumor necrosis factor-blocking agents and leflunomide for treating rheumatoid arthritis in the Netherlands. Arthritis Rheum 2004 Dec 15; 51 (6): 964–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM. A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for methotrexate-naive rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2002 Jun; 29 (6): 1156–1165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000 Oct; 43 (10): 2316–2327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Barbieri M, Wong JB, Drummond M. The cost effectiveness of infliximab for severe treatment-resistant rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (6): 607–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wong JB, Singh G, Kavanaugh A. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 54 weeks of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 2002 Oct 1; 113 (5): 400–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chiou CF, Choi J, Reyes C. Cost-effectiveness of biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes 2004; 4 (3): 307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tanno M, Nakamura I, Ito K, et al. Modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in Japan: a preliminary analysis. Mod Rheumatol 2006; 16 (2): 77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Coyle D, Judd M, Blumenauer B, et al. Infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation [technology report no. 64]. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marra CA. Not all ‘quality-adjusted life years’ are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (6): 616–624

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Spalding JR, Hay J. Cost effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors as first-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (12): 1221–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schädlich PK, Zeidler H, Zink A, et al. Modelling cost effectiveness and cost utility of sequential DM ARD therapy including leflunomide for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany: II. The contribution of leflunomide to efficiency. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4): 395–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Young A. Modelling the costs and effects of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Health Econ 2002; 3 (3): 180–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Maetzel A, Strand V, Tugwell P, et al. Cost effectiveness of adding leflunomide to a 5-year strategy of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47 (6): 655–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY. The dimensions of health outcomes: the health assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol 1982 Sep–Oct; 9 (5): 789–793

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003 Jan; 30 (1): 167–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec J A, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUB, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005 Apr; 60 (7): 1571–1582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, et al. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 1993 Mar; 20 (3): 557–560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, et al. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000 Jul; 43 (7): 1478–1487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bansback NJ, Marra CA, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using the Health Assessment Questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57 (6): 2963–2967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolfe F, Michaud K. HAQ-based utilities and SF6D systematically overvalue quality of life (QOL) in RA patients with severe RA, pain and psychological distress [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48 (9): 982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Yelin E, Wanke LA. An assessment of the annual and long-term direct costs of rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of poor function and functional decline. Arthritis Rheum 1999 Jun; 42 (6): 1209–1218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Leardini G, Salaffi F, Montanelli R, et al. A multicenter cost-of-illness study on rheumatoid arthritis in Italy. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2002 Jul-Aug; 20 (4): 505–515

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Jonsson L, et al. Economic consequences of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 1999 Feb; 42 (2): 347–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Lindroth Y, et al. Modelling the effect of function and disease activity on costs and quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005 Sep; 44 (9): 1169–1175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Clarke AE, Zowall H, Levinton C, et al. Direct and indirect medical costs incurred by Canadian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 year study. J Rheumatol 1997 Jun; 24 (6): 1051–1060

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wolfe F, Zwillich SH. The long-term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis: a 23-year prospective, longitudinal study of total joint replacement and its predictors in 1600 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1998 Jun; 41 (6): 1072–1082

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Pugner KM, Scott DI, Holmes JW, et al. The costs of rheumatoid arthritis: an international long-term view. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2000 Apr; 29 (5): 305–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Rat AC, Boissier MC. Rheumatoid arthritis: direct and indirect costs. Joint Bone Spine 2004 Nov; 71 (6): 518–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Burton W, Morrison A, Maclean R, et al. Systematic review of studies of productivity loss due to rheumatoid arthritis. Occup Med (Lond) 2006 Jan; 56 (1): 18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Farragher TM, Lunt M, Bunn DK, et al. Early functional disability predicts both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in people with inflammatory polyarthritis: results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2007 Apr; 66 (4): 486–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sokka T, Hakkinen A, Krishnan E, et al. Similar prediction of mortality by the health assessment questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and the general population. Ann Rheum Dis 2004 May; 63 (5): 494–497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Yelin E, Trupin L, Wong B, et al. The impact of functional status and change in functional status on mortality over 18 years among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2002 Sep; 29 (9): 1851–1857

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum 1993 Jun; 36 (6): 729–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Lange ML, et al. Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent? Arthritis Rheum 1998 Sep; 41 (9): 1564–1570

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. O’Dell JR. The horseless carriage: moving forward with the hybrid ACR. Arthritis Rheum 2007 Feb 28; 57 (2): 189–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Verhoeven AC, Boers M, van Der Linden S. Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000 Dec; 59 (12): 966–974

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Chiou CF, Weisman M, Sherbourne CD, et al. Measuring preference weights for American college of rheumatology response criteria for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2005 Dec; 32 (12): 2326–2329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Yelin E, Trupin L, Katz P, et al. Association between etanercept use and employment outcomes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Nov; 48 (11): 3046–3054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Cook NR, Buring JE, Ridker PM. The effect of including C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women. Ann Intern Med 2006 Jul 4; 145 (1): 21–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. van der Heijde DM, van’t Hof MA, van Riel PL, et al. Judging disease activity in clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: first step in the development of a disease activity score. Ann Rheum Dis 1990 Nov; 49 (11): 916–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Prevoo ML, van’t Hof MA, Kuper HH, et al. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995 Jan; 38 (1): 44–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. van Gestel AM, Prevoo ML, van’t Hof MA, et al. Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1996 Jan; 39 (1): 34–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Geborek P. TNF inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: costs and outcomes in a follow up study of patients with R A treated with etanercept or infliximab in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 2004 Jan; 63 (1): 4–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Young A, Koduri G, Batley M, et al. Mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: increased in the early course of disease, in ischaemic heart disease and in pulmonary fibrosis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007 Feb; 46 (2): 350–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Aletaha D, Smolen J, Ward MM. Measuring function in rheumatoid arthritis: identifying reversible and irreversible components. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Sep; 54 (9): 2784–2792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kirwan JR. Links between radiological change, disability, and pathology in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001 Apr; 28 (4): 881–886

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Scott DL, Smith C, Kingsley G. Joint damage and disability in rheumatoid arthritis: an updated systematic review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2003 Sep–Oct; 21 (5 Suppl. 31): S20–S27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Drummond MF, Barbieri M, Wong JB. Analytic choices in economic models of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: what makes a difference? Med Decis Making 2005 Sep–Oct; 25 (5): 520–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, et al. The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol Assess 2004 Mar; 8 (11): iii, 1-91

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Welsing PM, Severens JL, Hartman M, et al. The initial validation of a Markov model for the economic evaluation of (new) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10): 1011–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Jonathan Karnon has received an honorarium for speaking at a clinical meeting sponsored by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul’s Hospital, 620B-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 1Y6, Canada

    Nick Bansback & Aslam Anis

  2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Roberta Ara

  3. Department of Public Health, School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Jonathan Karnon

  4. Department of Healthcare and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Aslam Anis

Authors
  1. Nick Bansback
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberta Ara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan Karnon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aslam Anis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Bansback.

Appendix 1: EMBASE Search

Appendix 1: EMBASE Search

  1. 1.

    rheumatoid arthritis/

  2. 2.

    tum?r necrosis factor.mp.

  3. 3.

    exp receptors tumor necros

  4. 4.

    anti tnf.mp.

  5. 5.

    disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs.mp

  6. 6.

    or/2-5

  7. 7.

    1 and 6

  8. 8.

    cost benefit analysis/

  9. 9.

    cost effectiveness analysis/

  10. 10.

    cost minimization analysis/

  11. 11.

    cost utility analysis/

  12. 12.

    economic evaluation/

  13. 13.

    (cost or costs).tw

  14. 14.

    (economic$ or pharmacoeconomic$ or price or pricing).tw.

  15. 15.

    or/8-14

  16. 16.

    7 and 15

  17. 17.

    limit 16 to yr=1990–2007

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bansback, N., Ara, R., Karnon, J. et al. Economic Evaluations in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 395–408 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826050-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826050-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation