ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Relative efficacy and effectiveness assessment of new pharmaceuticals in three EU member states: current practices and outcome agreement between Belgium, the Netherlands and France.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesRelative efficacy and effectiveness assessment (REA) of a pharmaceutical product is critical in reimbursement decisions. The Pharmaceutical Forum (2005-2008) asked European Union (EU) member states (MS) to strengthen the methodological quality and rigor of REA and identify any scope for common approaches. Here, we have compared REA practices and results within three EU MS with similar reimbursement procedures for the period 2007-2010 to describe the actual situation.
methodsAssessment procedures and reports from the Belgian, Dutch and French Agency websites were retrieved and corresponding products matched. The REA-outcome was coded as added therapeutic value (ATV) yes or no. The strength of agreement between the three MS was estimated and analyzed in relation to some explanatory variables.
resultsOf the 144 Belgian, 122 Dutch and 236 French assessment reports retrieved, ATV was granted in 35, 39 and 23 % of cases, respectively, with 72 matches between the three MS. In all MS the results of at least one randomized trial were available in >90 % of reports. Between two MS significant agreement was achieved in ≥ 72 % of cases; this was 54 % between the three MS. Differences in ATV existed for treatments in severe chronic diseases. Assessment procedures were poorly documented in Belgium and France.
conclusionsOur findings reveal that the three similar EU MS under study agree on the REA-outcome of only half of the new drugs. Differences in applied methodology (e.g. inferences from study results, handling of uncertainty) between MS may exist. We suggest that a joint REA approach would benefit from a common understanding and application of the scientific assessment process using shared guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23995947What 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.