Common Drug Review Recommendations: An Evidence Base for Expectations?
AbstractBackground: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. Abstract: Objective: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. Abstract: Methods: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. Abstract: Results: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. Abstract: Conclusions: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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
Cost-effectiveness; Decision-making; Drug-cost; Formularies; Reimbursement.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.