ArticleBMC public health2020
The speed of adoption of new drugs and prescription volume after the amendments in reimbursement coverage: the case of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in South Korea.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Exploring bleeding in oral anticoagulant users: assessing incidence by indications and risk factors in the entire nationwide cohort.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Reimbursement and use of oral anticoagulants during 2014-2022 - A register-based study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Patterns of oral anticoagulant use and outcomes in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation: a post-hoc analysis from the GLORIA-AF Registry.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Evolving Trends in Consumption of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in 65 Countries/Regions from 2008 to 2019.Drugs · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe speed of adoption of new drugs and frequencies of substitutions leads to changes in health care expenditures as well as patient outcomes. In this study, we aim to understand the speed of adoption of new drugs and their prescription volume in health care institutions and evaluate the impact of policy options to manage pharmaceutical expenditure.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of health care institutions prescribing NOACs, including Apixaban, Dabigatran, and Rivaroxaban, to address the speed of adoption and their substitution from October 1, 2010, through December 31, 2015, using the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort. Two threshold time points, including the extension of reimbursement with the need for the letter of opinion and the withdrawal of the letter of opinion, were noted in this study. Then, we applied a survival analysis to elucidate factors that affected the speed of adoption of NOACs, and interrupted time series analysis to estimate the effect of amendments in reimbursement coverage in prescription volume.
resultsAmong 934 health care institutions in a study population, 334 institutions (36%) had prescribed NOACs at least one time during the study period, indicating that health care institutions were conservative in adopting new drugs. However, the speed of adoption was related to the characteristics of health care institution. We also found that prescriptions of NOACs before the withdrawal of the need for the letter of opinion were marginal, and the prescription volume of NOACs was significantly increased after the withdrawal of a letter of opinion.
conclusionsHealth care institutions were conservative in adopting new drugs, and the speed of adoption is not closely related to an increased prescription volume in the short run. Thus, policies that are centered on managing pharmaceutical expenditure should be devised with considering the impact of introducing new drugs in the long run. A letter of opinion, which was devised to manage prescriptions of NOACs, was effective in managing pharmaceutical expenditures in health care institutions, particularly for tertiary institutions. Conversely, the withdrawal of the need for the letter of opinion should be implemented with caution.
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.