ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2011
Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada's Common Drug Review.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An Exploratory Analysis of Predictors of Concordance between Canadian Common Drug Review Reimbursement Recommendations and the Subsequent Decisions by Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2020Article
- Conditional approval of cancer drugs in Canada: accountability and impact on public funding.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- An analysis of redactions in Canada's Common Drug Review Clinical Review Reports and how they relate to the patients' voice.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Do reimbursement recommendation processes used by government drug plans in Canada adhere to good governance principles?ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
- Comparison of drug coverage in Canada before and after the establishment of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations?PharmacoEconomics · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCanada's Common Drug Review was implemented to provide publicly funded drug plans (provincial and federal) with a transparent, rigorous and consistent approach for assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new drugs. We compared uptake of drug coverage across jurisdictions before and after the implementation of the Common Drug Review.
methodsUsing the IMS Brogan formulary acceptance: monitoring and evaluation database, we identified new drug products in Canada five years before and five years after the first recommendation was made by the Common Drug Review. For each jurisdiction, we compared the proportion of drugs listed, the median time-to-listing and the agreement between the listing decisions of the drug plans and the recommendations of the Common Drug Review.
resultsWe identified 198 new drugs approved for use in Canada between May 26, 1999, and May 27, 2009, of which 53 had a recommendation from the Common Drug Review. The proportion of drugs listed decreased after the introduction of the Common Drug Review for all participating drug plans (81.1% to 71.3% overall [p ≤ 0.01 for all plans, with the exceptions of Ontario and Quebec [p = 0.07]). The change in median time-to-listing between the periods before and after the Common Drug Review varied by jurisdiction, ranging from a decrease of 691 days to an increase of 250 days. The change in median time-to-listing was not statistically significant for most jurisdictions, with the exceptions of Saskatchewan (increased, Mann-Whitney U test p = 0.01) and New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador (all decreased, Mann-Whitney U test p < 0.01).
interpretationThere was a decline in the proportion of new drugs listed after the introduction of the Common Drug Review for both participating and nonparticipating jurisdictions. The introduction of the review was associated with a decreased time-to-listing for certain smaller provinces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.