ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
The use of national reimbursement reports to support formulary decisions of the hospital's Drug and Therapeutics Committee: a comparative analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background New therapies that do not reach patients in need, have not achieved their goal. Drug and Therapeutics Committees in hospitals ensure access to patients by compiling a formulary on rational grounds. An evolving landscape of innovative molecules challenges timely formulary adaptation after national reimbursement. Aim To integrate national reimbursement reports in the hospital's appraisal, thereby promoting access for patients without delay. Method For 2019, the rationale for new molecules at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium, was compared with the public assessment report of the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance, assessing a medicine in a specific indication following a reimbursement request by the manufacturer. Decision criteria (therapeutic value and cost) between matching medicines in both databases (national & hospital) were retrospectively compared [no (%), mean (SD)]. Results Two-hundred public reports and 30 formulary decisions were analysed (with antineoplastic & immunomodulating as most prevalent class: 41.0% resp. 36.7%). National decision often concerned hospital-only medicines (89; 44.5%) without patient co-payment (101; 50.5%). Of 13 matched medicines (same indication), time delay between national decision and formulary admission was on average 3.1 (SD 2.3) months. Comparative analysis showed that assessment in both committees was mostly based on the efficacy endpoints of Randomised Controlled Trials. Literature used in hospital appraisals was of more recent publication date: + 0.78 (SD 2.2) years. Using public reports as a horizon scan could enable quick identification of new indications. Conclusion To speed up patient access, the scientific evidence of national reimbursement reports can be used for the purpose of hospital formulary decisions.
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.