Dataset Information

Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada's Common Drug Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Canada's Common Drug Review was implemented to provide publicly funded drug plans (provincial and federal) with a transparent, rigorous and consistent approach for assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new drugs. We compared uptake of drug coverage across jurisdictions before and after the implementation of the Common Drug Review.

Methods

Using the IMS Brogan formulary acceptance: monitoring and evaluation database, we identified new drug products in Canada five years before and five years after the first recommendation was made by the Common Drug Review. For each jurisdiction, we compared the proportion of drugs listed, the median time-to-listing and the agreement between the listing decisions of the drug plans and the recommendations of the Common Drug Review.

Results

We identified 198 new drugs approved for use in Canada between May 26, 1999, and May 27, 2009, of which 53 had a recommendation from the Common Drug Review. The proportion of drugs listed decreased after the introduction of the Common Drug Review for all participating drug plans (81.1% to 71.3% overall [p ? 0.01 for all plans, with the exceptions of Ontario and Quebec [p = 0.07]). The change in median time-to-listing between the periods before and after the Common Drug Review varied by jurisdiction, ranging from a decrease of 691 days to an increase of 250 days. The change in median time-to-listing was not statistically significant for most jurisdictions, with the exceptions of Saskatchewan (increased, Mann-Whitney U test p = 0.01) and New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador (all decreased, Mann-Whitney U test p < 0.01).

Interpretation

There was a decline in the proportion of new drugs listed after the introduction of the Common Drug Review for both participating and nonparticipating jurisdictions. The introduction of the review was associated with a decreased time-to-listing for certain smaller provinces.

SUBMITTER: Gamble JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3225449 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada's Common Drug Review.

Gamble John-Michael JM Weir Daniala L DL Johnson Jeffrey A JA Eurich Dean T DT

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20111024 17

<h4>Background</h4>Canada's Common Drug Review was implemented to provide publicly funded drug plans (provincial and federal) with a transparent, rigorous and consistent approach for assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new drugs. We compared uptake of drug coverage across jurisdictions before and after the implementation of the Common Drug Review.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the IMS Brogan formulary acceptance: monitoring and evaluation database, we identified new drug produc ...[more]

PMID: 22025648

Similar Datasets

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Canada's Common Drug Review (CDR) evaluates drug data from published and unpublished research, as well as input from patient groups, to recommend provincial coverage. Currently, the CDR process gives manufacturers the opportunity to redact information in the final publicly available report. Patients often have strong feelings regarding the efficacy, harms, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and cost associated with the drugs under review and their redacted data. Highlighting Canada's approach will hopefully build on the growing international concern regarding transparency of clinical study data. OBJECTIVE:The purpose was to objectively examine and classify completed, publicly available CDR-Clinical Review Reports (CRR) for redactions, and compare them to the patients' reported interests as patient-centred outcomes. METHODS:Two independent reviewers searched for and examined publicly available CDR-CRR from November 2013-September 2016 through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) on-line database. Both reviewers separately classified the redactions and patient-reported interests into the following categories: efficacy, harms, HRQL and costs. All discrepancies were rectified by consensus involving a third reviewer. RESULTS:Fifty-two completed CDR-CRR were reviewed. 48 (92%) included patient-reported interests and 40 (77%) had redactions classified in the following categories: efficacy (75%), costs (48%), harms (38%), HRQL (23%). 89% of redactions were outcomes identified as patient-reported interests (69% efficacy, 42% harms, 36% cost, 33% HRQL). When examining drug characteristics, biological agents were statistically associated with increased odds of redactions with respect to either efficacy (OR 3.4, 95%?CI 1.0 to 11.6) or harms (OR 3.5, 95%?CI 1.02 to 12.4) compared with non-biological agents. CONCLUSIONS:Whether data from the CDR-CRR used in the decision-making should be fully disclosed to the public is controversial. Our findings suggest clinical data (efficacy, harms, HRQL) matters to patients and should be publicly available within the CDR-CRR. Canada trails Europe and the USA regarding the transparency of clinical study data. This lack of transparency relates to the patient voice, and limits movement towards patient-centred care and patient-engaged research, restricting real-world value measurement.

Project description:BackgroundIn September 2003, the Canadian government committed to developing legislation that would facilitate greater access to affordable medicines for developing countries. Over the course of eight months, the legislation, now known as Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR), went through a controversial policy development process and the newspaper media was one of the major venues in which the policy debates took place. The purpose of this study was to examine how the media framed CAMR to determine how policy goals were conceptualized, which stakeholder interests controlled the public debate and how these variables related to the public policy process.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative content analysis of newspaper coverage of the CAMR policy and implementation process from 2003-2008. The primary theoretical framework for this study was framing theory. A total of 90 articles from 11 Canadian newspapers were selected for inclusion in our analysis. A team of four researchers coded the articles for themes relating to access to medicines and which stakeholders' voice figured more prominently on each issue. Stakeholders examined included: the research-based industry, the generic industry, civil society, the Canadian government, and developing country representatives.ResultsThe most frequently mentioned themes across all documents were the issues of drug affordability, intellectual property, trade agreements and obligations, and development. Issues such as human rights, pharmaceutical innovation, and economic competitiveness got little media representation. Civil society dominated the media contents, followed far behind by the Canadian government, the research-based and generic pharmaceutical industries. Developing country representatives were hardly represented in the media.ConclusionsMedia framing obscured the discussion of some of the underlying policy goals in this case and failed to highlight issues which are now significant barriers to the use of the legislation. Using the media to engage the public in more in-depth exploration of the policy issues at stake may contribute to a more informed policy development process. The media can be an effective channel for those stakeholders with a weaker voice in policy deliberations to raise public attention to particular issues; however, the political and institutional context must be taken into account as it may outweigh media framing effects.

Project description:IntroductionIn January 2017, mifepristone-induced medical abortion was made available in Canada. In this study, we will seek to (1) understand facilitators and barriers to the implementation of mifepristone across Canada, (2) assess the impact of a 'community of practice' clinical and health service support platform and (3) engage in and assess the impact of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) activities aimed to improve health policy, systems and service delivery issues to enhance patient access to mifepristone.Methods and analysisThis prospective mixed-methods implementation study will involve a national sample of physicians and pharmacists recruited via an online training programme, professional networks and a purpose-built community of practice website. Surveys that explore constructs related to diffusion of innovation and Godin's behaviour change frameworks will be conducted at baseline and at 6 months, and qualitative data will be collected from electronic interactions on the website. Survey participants and a purposeful sample of decision-makers will be invited to participate in in-depth interviews. Descriptive analyses will be conducted for quantitative data. Thematic analysis guided by the theoretical frameworks will guide interpretation of qualitative data. We will conduct and assess iKT activities involving Canada's leading health system and health professional leaders, including evidence briefs, Geographical Information System (GIS)maps, face-to-face meetings and regular electronic exchanges. Findings will contribute to understanding the mechanisms of iKT relationships and activities that have a meaningful effect on uptake of evidence into policy and practice.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received from the University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Hospital Ethics Review Board (H16-01006). Full publication of the work will be sought in an international peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be disseminated to research participants through newsletters and media interviews, and to policy-makers through invited evidence briefs and face-to-face presentations.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, its role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). Hence, this scoping review aimed to identify and characterise the use of implementation research initiatives for assessing UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.MethodsThe review protocol was developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, as enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. The search also included a hand search of relevant grey literature and reference lists. Literature sources involving the application of implementation research in the context of UHC in Africa were eligible for inclusion.ResultsThe database search yielded 2153 records. We identified 12 additional records from hand search of reference lists. After the removal of duplicates, we had 2051 unique records, of which 26 studies were included in the review. Implementation research was used within ten distinct UHC-related contexts, including HIV; maternal and child health; voluntary male medical circumcision; healthcare financing; immunisation; healthcare data quality; malaria diagnosis; primary healthcare quality improvement; surgery and typhoid fever control. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) was the most frequently used framework. Qualitative and mixed-methods study designs were the commonest methods used. Implementation research was mostly used to guide post-implementation evaluation of health programmes and the contextualisation of findings to improve future implementation outcomes. The most commonly reported contextual facilitators were political support, funding, sustained collaboration and effective programme leadership. Reported barriers included inadequate human and other resources; lack of incentives; perception of implementation as additional work burden; and socio-cultural barriers.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that implementation research can be used to achieve UHC-related outcomes in Africa. It has identified important facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for promoting UHC in the region.

Project description:IntroductionImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of institutions and initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, their role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). This review aims to extensively identify and characterise the nature, facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for assessing or evaluating UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. It will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases will be conducted: Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Relevant grey literature and reference lists will also be searched. All publications describing the application of implementation research in the context of UHC will be considered for inclusion. Findings will be narratively synthesised and analysed using a predefined conceptual framework. Where applicable, quantitative evidence will be aggregated using summary statistics. There will be consultation of stakeholders, including UHC-oriented health professionals, programme managers, implementation researchers and policy-makers; to provide methodological, conceptual and practical insights.Ethics and disseminationThe data used in this review will be sourced from publicly available literature; hence, this study will not require ethical approval. Findings and recommendations will be disseminated to reach a diverse audience, including UHC advocates, implementation researchers and key health system stakeholders within the African region. Additionally, findings will be disseminated through an open-access publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

Dataset Information

Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada's Common Drug Review.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada's Common Drug Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets