Common drug review recommendations: An evidence base for expectations?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 229-246

  Rocchi, Angela ^a   Miller, Elizabeth ^a   Hopkins, Robert B ^b,c   Goeree, Ron ^b,c  

^a Axia Research   (Canada)

^b Research Institute   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Decision making; Drug cost; Formularies; Reimbursement

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; ANTI HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS AGENT; APREPITANT; POSACONAZOLE; SILDENAFIL;

ASPERGILLOSIS; CANDIDIASIS; CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED EMESIS; COMMON DRUG REVIEW; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HUMAN; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULMONARY HYPERTENSION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW;

CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FORMULARIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84857260419     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11593030-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD health data 2011: how does Canada compare [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoe cd/46/33/38979719.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 12]
2. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug expenditure in Canada: 1985 to 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/ products/dex-1985-to-2009-e.pdf [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
3. IMS Health Canada. PharmaFocus 2014: leveraging knowledge for future success. Ottawa (ON): IMS, 2010 Jun
4. Anis AH, Guh D, Wang X. A dog's breakfast: prescription drug coverage varies widely across Canada. Med Care 2001; 39: 315-26 (Pubitemid 33603631)
5. Gregoire JP, MacNeil P, Skilton K, et al. Inter-provincial variation in government drug formularies. Can J Public Health 2001; 92: 307-12 (Pubitemid 33019488)
6. MacDonald K, Potvin K. Interprovincial variation in access to publicly funded pharmaceuticals: a review based on the WHO anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system. Can Pharm J 2004; 137: 29-34 (Pubitemid 39423244)
7. Menon D, Stafinski T, Stuart G, et al. Access to drugs in Canada. Does where you live matter? Can J Public Health 2005; 96: 454-8 (Pubitemid 41762922)
8. Tierney M, Manns B, Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee. Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review. CMAJ 2008; 178 (4): 432-5 (Pubitemid 351303287)
9. Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25: 337-47 (Pubitemid 43529541)
10. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common Drug Review submission guidelines for manufacturers. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2011 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/process/ CDR-Submission- Guidelines.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 12]
11. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Procedure for Common Drug Review. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2011 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/process/CDR-Procedure-e.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 12]
12. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CDR update: issue 67 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr/cdr- update/cdr-updateissue- 67 [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
13. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guide: patient group input to the Common Drug Review. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2010 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/cdr-pdf/Guide-Pa tient-Group-Input-to-CDR-final-e.pdf [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
14. Belanger D. Update from CADTH's Common Drug Review program: Eyeforpharma 2nd annual market access Canada conference; 2010 Oct 4; Toronto (ON).
15. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH announces expansion of Common Drug Review (CDR) program [media release]. 2007 Apr 12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/ cdr/cdr-update/cdr-update-35 [Accessed 2010 Jun 25]
16. Ekos Research Associates Inc. Evaluation of the first year of operation for the Common Drug Review. Ottawa (ON): EKOS, 2005 Sep 27 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/cdr-evaluation-firstyear-oct2005. pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 25]
17. Standing Committee on Health. Prescription drugs part I - Common Drug Review: an F/P/T process. Ottawa (ON): House of Commons, 2007 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.parl.gc.ca [Accessed 2010 Jun 25]
18. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CDR update - Issue 39: Common Drug Review expansion, clarification [online]. Available from URL: http://www. cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/cdr-update/cdr-update-39 [Accessed 2010 Jun 25]
19. Wyatt Health Management. The Rx and D International Report on Access to Medicines 2008/2009. Ottawa (ON): Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.patientscome first.ca/inc/pdfs/Rx&D-InternationalReport-en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
20. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia and Canada. JAMA 2009; 302: 1437-43
21. Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Manag Care 2009; 14: 581-8
22. Gamble JM, Weir DL, Johnson JA, et al. Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada's Common Drug Review. CMAJ 2011; 183: e1259-66
23. Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health: notes for remarks by Russell Williams, President of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. 2007 Apr 16 [online]. Available from URL: https:// www.canadapharma.org/en/media/ statements/pdfs/Remarks- April-16-EN-WS-Final.pdf [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
24. McMahon M, Morgan S, Mitton C. The Common Drug Review: a NICE start forCanada?Health Policy 2006; 77: 339-51 (Pubitemid 43946522)
25. Laupacis A. Economic evaluations in the Canadian common drug review. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1157-62 (Pubitemid 44696259)
26. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common Drug Review documentation [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
27. Clement F. A tri-nation comparison of pharmacoeconomic submissions: CDR, NICE and PBAC. CADTH Invitational Symposium; 2008 Apr 27-29; Edmonton (AB)
28. Rocchi A, Miller B. CEDAC recommendations: does costeffectiveness matter? CADTH Invitational Symposium; 2008 Apr 27-29; Edmonton (AB)
29. STATA Statistical Software [computer program]. Release College Station (TX): StataCorp LP, 2009
30. Bender R, Lange S. Adjusting for multiple testing - when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 343-9 (Pubitemid 32303457)
31. Rocchi A, Miller E. CDR recommendations: does costeffectiveness matter? CADTH Invitational Symposium; 2008 Apr 27-29; Edmonton (AB)
32. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146 (4): 473-81
33. Devlin N, Dakin H, Rice N, et al. NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold revisited: new evidence on the influence of cost effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. 13th Annual ISPOR European Congress; 2010 Nov 6-9; Prague
34. Detsky AS, Laupacis A. Relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis to clinicians and policy makers. JAMA 2007; 298: 221-4 (Pubitemid 47057770)
35. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Transparent Drug System for Patients Act, 38:2 Bill 102 (2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov. on.ca/english/public/legislation/drugs/hu-drugsact.html [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
36. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CEDAC final recommendation on reconsideration and reasons for recommendation: aliskiren [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr- complete-Rasilez-June-25-2008-e.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 28]
37. Ontario Ministry for Health and Long-Term Care. Committee to Evaluate Drugs recommendations and reasons: aliskiren. 2009 Oct [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/drugs/ ced/pdf/aliskiren.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 28]
38. Gavura S, Rocchi A, Shum D, et al. Value versus values: it's all about the evidence unless it's cheaper. CADTH Symposium; 2010 Apr 18-20; Halifax (NS) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/events/sym posium-2010/program/concurrent-session-18 [Accessed 2010 Jun 28]
39. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CEDAC final recommendation: insulin detemir resubmission #2 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth. ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr-complete-Levemir-Resubmission- Adults-August-20-2009.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 18]
40. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CEDAC final recommendation: hydromorphone hydrochloride [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth. ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr-complete-Jurnista-May-19- 2010.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 18]
41. LeLorier J, Bell A, Bougher DJ, et al. Drug reimbursement policies in Canada: need for improved access to critical therapies. Ann Pharmacother 2008; 42 (6): 869-73 (Pubitemid 351780483)
42. Clarke JTR. Is the current approach to reviewing new drugs condemning the victims of rare diseases to death? A call for a national orphan drug review policy. CMAJ 2006; 174: 189-90
43. Skinner BJ. Waiting for reimbursement of new medicines in Canada: it's time for a rethink. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 629-32 (Pubitemid 351989055)
44. Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, et al. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases - a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 16: 273-81
45. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Drug system reforms: drugs for rare diseases [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/ public/pro grams/drugreforms/bill-102/patientaccess/rare-diseases. aspx [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
46. Alberta Ministry of Health and Wellness. Rare Diseases Drug Program [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.alberta.ca/AHCIP/drugs-rare- diseases.html [Accessed 2010 Dec 15]
47. Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2005; 294 (20): 2630-2 (Pubitemid 41697253)
48. Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money. NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005; 294 (20): 2618-22 (Pubitemid 41697251)
49. Raftery JP. Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 26-8
50. Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 713-22
51. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE announces measures on end of life medicines [media release]. 2008 Nov 5 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/6C4/6C/2008066MeasuresOnLifeMedicines.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 28]
52. Chim L, Kelly PJ, Salkeld G, et al. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (6): 463-75