Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28018881›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions: an exploratory study.

Nicola Allen, Stuart R Walker, Lawrence Liberti, Chander Sehgal, M Sam Salek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Nicola AllenSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (Allen, Walker), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Allen, Walker), London, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Liberti), Hatton Garden, London, UK; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (Sehgal), Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Postgraduate Medicine (Salek), School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Institute for Medicines Development (Salek), Cardiff, UK.
Stuart R WalkerSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (Allen, Walker), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Allen, Walker), London, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Liberti), Hatton Garden, London, UK; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (Sehgal), Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Postgraduate Medicine (Salek), School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Institute for Medicines Development (Salek), Cardiff, UK.
Lawrence LibertiSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (Allen, Walker), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Allen, Walker), London, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Liberti), Hatton Garden, London, UK; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (Sehgal), Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Postgraduate Medicine (Salek), School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Institute for Medicines Development (Salek), Cardiff, UK.
Chander SehgalSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (Allen, Walker), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Allen, Walker), London, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Liberti), Hatton Garden, London, UK; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (Sehgal), Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Postgraduate Medicine (Salek), School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Institute for Medicines Development (Salek), Cardiff, UK.
M Sam SalekSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (Allen, Walker), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Allen, Walker), London, UK; Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (Liberti), Hatton Garden, London, UK; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (Sehgal), Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Postgraduate Medicine (Salek), School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Institute for Medicines Development (Salek), Cardiff, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe CADTH Common Drug Review was established in 2002 to prepare national health technology assessment reports to guide listing decisions for 18 participating drug plans. The aim of this study was to compare the nonmandatory recommendations from the Common Drug Review in Canada with the listing decisions of provincial payers to determine alignment.

methodsWe identified the recommendations issued by the Common Drug Review from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015, and compared these with the listing decisions of 3 provincial public payers (Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario) that participate in the Common Drug Review and the recommendations from Quebec.

resultsWe identified 174 medicine-indication pairs in CADTH Common Drug Review reports issued from Jan. 1, 2009, to Jan. 1, 2015; 110 of these met the inclusion criterion. Among the 110 medicine-indication pairs, listing decisions were available for 95 in Alberta, 102 in Quebec, 104 in Ontario and 106 in BC. There was moderate to substantial agreement between provincial listing decisions and Common Drug Review recommendations: 74.5% (κ = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.64) for Quebec, 78.8% (κ = 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.72) for Ontario, 78.9% (κ = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.74) for Alberta and 81.1% (κ = 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.77) for BC.

interpretationOur study showed moderate to substantial agreement between Common Drug Review recommendations and provincial listing decisions. Future studies can build on this research by evaluating the concordance between Common Drug Review recommendations and listing decisions of all participating federal, provincial and territorial drug plans.

Identifiers

PMID28018881
PMCPMC5173476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.