ArticleBMJ open2015
Comparison of drug coverage in Canada before and after the establishment of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Timeliness of Health Technology Assessments and Price Negotiations for Oncology Drugs in Canada.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing Delays in Patient Access to New Medicines in Canada: A Retrospective Study of Reimbursement Processes in Public Drug Plans.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA): Timelines Analysis and Policy Implications.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study was conducted to determine whether establishment of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) was associated with significant changes in drug listing decisions across Canada. ANALYSIS AND
resultsThis study included drug indications that received a Common Drug Review or pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review listing recommendation within 3 years before ('pre-PCPA era' group; n=79) and 3 years after ('PCPA era' group; n=91) the pCPA was established in August 2010. At the time of this study (30 April 2014), nine pCPA-participating jurisdictions had listed 35-59% of drug indications in the pre-pCPA era group and a nearly identical range, 36-59%, in the pCPA era group. Within the pCPA-era group, 31 drug indications (34%) had completed pCPA negotiations ('pCPA negotiation' subgroup); the jurisdictions had listed 39-77% of these drug indications. Comparison of the pCPA era group to the pre-pCPA era group indicated that the proportion listed did not change significantly in any jurisdiction, and time-to-listing increased significantly in New Brunswick and decreased significantly in Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. When the pCPA negotiation subgroup was compared to the pre-pCPA era group, the proportion listed increased significantly in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador, and time-to-listing increased significantly in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and decreased significantly in Manitoba and Ontario. A sensitivity analysis suggested more favourable results regarding the pCPA's impact.
conclusionsWhile the pCPA might have had a varied effect on time-to-listing, this study's primary analysis did not observe a significant impact on the overall proportion of new drug indications listed across jurisdictions. This may be due to the fact that, at the time of this study, only a limited number of drug indications had completed pCPA negotiations. This study provides a framework for future evaluations of the pCPA's impact as it continues to evolve.
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.