ArticleCMAJ open
Evaluating alignment between Canadian Common Drug Review reimbursement recommendations and provincial drug plan listing decisions: an exploratory study.
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.
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.
- Emergency contraception subsidy in Canada: a comparative policy analysis.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- 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
- Inter- and intraprovincial inequities in public coverage of cancer drug programs across Canada: a plea for the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare program.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- 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
- Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2018Article
- A Comparison of Reimbursement Recommendations by European HTA Agencies: Is There Opportunity for Further Alignment?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
- Article
- Ethical challenges and opportunities in the development and approval of novel therapeutics for rare diseases.The journal of medicine accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.