IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v30y2012i3p229-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Drug Review Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Rocchi
  • Elizabeth Miller
  • Robert Hopkins
  • Ron Goeree

Abstract

Background: The Common Drug Review (CDR) was created to provide a single process to review the comparative clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of new drugs, and then to make formulary listing recommendations to Canadian publicly funded drug benefit plans. Objective: The objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee (CEDAC) recommendations to date, to explore predictors and possible explanatory factors associated with negative recommendations. Methods: Final recommendations were identified from inception (September 2003) to 31 December 2009. Using only publicly available information, recommendations were analysed under the following categories: submission specifics, drug characteristics, clinical factors and economic factors. Descriptive analyses were conducted, followed by statistical analyses, to determine which factors independently predicted a ‘do not list’ (DNL) recommendation. Results: The database consisted of 138 unique final recommendations. The overall DNL rate was 48%. Significant differences in DNL rates were observed between therapeutic areas, ranging from 0% for HIV antivirals up to 88% for analgesic drugs. In the univariate analysis, several factors were significantly associated with a DNL recommendation, including first-in-class drugs and use of clinical scales as an outcome. In the multivariate regression, four factors were significantly predictive of a DNL recommendation: clinical uncertainty (odds ratio [OR] 14), price higher than comparators (OR 9), request for reconsideration (OR 10) and price as the only economic evidence used (OR 18). Incremental cost-effectiveness thresholds were not predictive of recommendations. The hypothesis that economic factors did not impact recommendations when clinical factors were included first was supported by the analysis. Conclusions: This analysis documented an evidence-driven process that simultaneously weighted multiple factors. Clinical uncertainty and price considerations, but not economic results, had a strong impact on the recommendations. Insufficiency of clinical evidence may have resulted from the gap in evidence available at the time of product launch and the absence of demonstrated benefits to support innovative drugs. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:229-246
    DOI: 10.2165/11593030-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11593030-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11593030-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    2. Mitton, Craig R. & McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Gibson, Jennifer, 2006. "Centralized drug review processes: Are they fair?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 200-211, July.
    3. Lesley Chim & Patrick Kelly & Glenn Salkeld & Martin Stockler, 2010. "Are Cancer Drugs Less Likely to be Recommended for Listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 463-475, June.
    4. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bae, Green & Bae, Eun Young & Bae, SeungJin, 2015. "Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 577-587.
    2. Karin Cerri & Martin Knapp & Jose-Luis Fernandez, 2014. "Public funding of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 681-695, September.
    3. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    4. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    5. Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R.S. & Bayoumi, Ahmed M., 2014. "Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 255-263.
    6. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Gambold, Liesl & Peacock, Stuart, 2021. "Uncertainty tolerance among experts involved in drug reimbursement recommendations: Qualitative evidence from HTA committees in Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 307-319.
    7. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    2. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    4. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    5. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Katharina E. Fischer & Tom Stargardt, 2014. "Early Benefit Assessment of Pharmaceuticals in Germany," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1030-1047, November.
    7. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    8. Carlos King Ho Wong & Olivia Wu & Bernard M. Y. Cheung, 2018. "Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14, February.
    9. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.
    10. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    11. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    12. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    13. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    14. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    15. Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr & Kawalec, Paweł & Trąbka, Wojciech, 2016. "Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012–2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1249-1255.
    16. Shiroiwa, Takeru & Fukuda, Takashi & Ikeda, Shunya & Takura, Tomoyuki, 2017. "New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 836-841.
    17. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Tracy Merlin, 2013. "Improving the Accuracy and Comparability of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies for Reimbursement Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 325-332, April.
    18. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    19. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & John S. F. Wright & Anthony J. G. Barron & Sara M. B. Shah & Corinna Klingler, 2017. "Convergence, Divergence and Hybridity: A Regulatory Governance Perspective on Health Technology Assessment in England and Germany," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 69-75, March.
    20. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:3:p:229-246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.