Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23717279›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2013

Dabigatran - a case history demonstrating the need for comprehensive approaches to optimize the use of new drugs.

Rickard E Malmström, Brian B Godman, Eduard Diogene, Christoph Baumgärtel, Marion Bennie, Iain Bishop, Anna Brzezinska, Anna Bucsics, Stephen Campbell, Alessandra Ferrario and 37 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Hepatitis C in Brazil: lessons learned with boceprevir and telaprevir.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2018
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The Expiry of HumiraFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

47 authors.

Rickard E MalmströmClinical Pharmacology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna Stockholm, Sweden.
Brian B Godman
Eduard Diogene
Christoph Baumgärtel
Marion Bennie
Iain Bishop
Anna Brzezinska
Anna Bucsics
Stephen Campbell
Alessandra Ferrario
Alexander E Finlayson
Jurij Fürst
Kristina Garuoliene
Miguel Gomes
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
Alan Haycox
Krystyna Hviding
Harald Herholz
Mikael Hoffmann
Saira Jan
Jan Jones
Roberta Joppi
Marija Kalaba
Christina Kvalheim
Ott Laius
Irene Langner
Julie Lonsdale
Sven-Äke Lööv
Kamila Malinowska
Laura McCullagh
Ken Paterson
Vanda Markovic-Pekovic
Andrew Martin
Jutta Piessnegger
Gisbert Selke
Catherine Sermet
Steven Simoens
Cankat Tulunay
Dominik Tomek
Luka Vončina
Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski
Janet Wale
Michael Wilcock
Magdalena Wladysiuk
Menno van Woerkom
Corrine Zara
Lars L Gustafsson

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies have shown dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. There are also issues with potentially re-designing anticoagulant services. This has resulted in activities across countries to better manage its use.

objectiveTo (i) review authority activities in over 30 countries and regions, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications for all major stakeholder groups. METHODOLOGY: Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran and the development of guidance for groups through an iterative process.

resultsThere has been a plethora of activities among authorities to manage the prescribing of dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions, and monitoring of prescribing post-launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities.

conclusionModels for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where there are concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.

Indexed as

critical drug evaluationdabigatrandemand-side measuresdrug and therapeutics committeesmanaged introduction new medicinespharmacovigilanceregistriesrisk sharing

Identifiers

PMID23717279
PMCPMC3653065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.