Dataset Information

"Market withdrawals" of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:According to the AMNOG act, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) determines the additional benefit of new medicines as a basis for subsequent price negotiations. Pharmaceutical companies may withdraw their medications from the market at any time during the process. This analysis aims to compare recommendations in clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of medicines that were withdrawn from the German market since the introduction of AMNOG in 2011. METHODS:Medications withdrawn from the German market between January 2011 and June 2016 following benefit assessment were categorized as opt-outs (max. 2 weeks after start of price negotiations) or supply terminations (during or after further price negotiations). Related guidelines were systematically analyzed. For all withdrawals, therapeutic area, additional benefit rating and recommendation status in relevant clinical guidelines were assessed. RESULTS:Among 139 medications, 10 opt-outs and 12 supply terminations were identified. Twenty-one out of 22 withdrawn medicines (95%) received 'no additional benefit' appraisal by the G-BA (average 'no additional benefit' rating for all AMNOG products: 47%). Of the 22 medicines, 15 (68%) were recommended by at least one guideline at the time of benefit assessment and 18 (82%) on 1 June 2016. Heterogeneity among guidelines was high. Acceptance of clinical trial endpoints was different between G-BA appraisals and clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION:Our analysis revealed considerable differences across clinical guidelines as well as between clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of the medicines that were withdrawn from the German market. Better alignment of the clinical perspective and close collaboration between all involved parties is required to achieve and maintain optimization of patient care.

SUBMITTER: Staab TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6755547 | biostudies-other | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Market withdrawals" of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations.

Staab Thomas R TR Walter Miriam M Mariotti Nesurini Sonja S Dintsios Charalabos-Markos CM Graf von der Schulenburg J-Matthias JM Amelung Volker E VE Ruof Jörg J

Health economics review 20180918 1

<h4>Background</h4>According to the AMNOG act, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) determines the additional benefit of new medicines as a basis for subsequent price negotiations. Pharmaceutical companies may withdraw their medications from the market at any time during the process. This analysis aims to compare recommendations in clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of medicines that were withdrawn from the German market since the introduction of AMNOG in 2011.<h4>Methods</h4>Medication ...[more]

PMID: 30229501

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBoth the commercial sector and academia play a vital role in medicine development. Ongoing debates exist on their contribution and the value of medicinal products entering the market.ObjectiveTo identify the provenance and clinical benefit of medicines that entered the French market between 2008 and 2018.Design and settingIn this cross-sectional study, the provenance of each medicine in the French market was established via a review of multiple sources documenting at least 2 matching findings per product. The clinical benefit was assigned using the matched scale developed from the Prescrire and Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) gradings. The χ2 test was used to analyze the proportions and frequencies of medicines graded by Prescrire and HAS by origin, therapeutic category, and clinical benefit.Main outcomes and measuresThe origins and therapeutic categories of medicines. Clinical benefit based on Prescrire and HAS grading. Concordance of Prescrire and HAS grading.ResultsOf the 632 medicines that entered the French market between 2008 and 2018, 464 originated (73%) in the commercial sector, and 168 originated (27%) in the academic setting or in collaboration with commercial enterprises. Prescrire graded psychotropic agents (13/14 [93%]), whereas HAS graded respiratory agents (24/25 [96%]) as the highest percentage of medicines that provided no added benefit. Prescrire graded 360 medicines (77.6%) that originated in the industry and 108 medicines (64.3%) that originated in the academic setting (P = .001) to have no added clinical benefit. HAS assigned such grading to 331 ([71.3%] industry) vs 104 ([61.9%] academia) (P = .02). Based on the Prescrire grading, academia invented more medicines delivering some added benefit 57 (33.9%) vs 98 (21.1%) invented by industry (P = .001). HAS grading on some added benefit 51 ([30.4%] academia) vs 121 ([26.1%] industry) did not reach statistical significance (P = .29). However, HAS grading on substantial added clinical benefit reached statistical significance in favor of academia (13 [7.7%] vs 12 [2.6%] in the industry; P = .003), whereas Prescrire grading did not (1.8% academia vs 1.3% industry; P = .64).Conclusions and relevanceMore than 70% of medicines that entered the French market during the 10-year period originated in the commercial sector. Although most medicines were not graded as providing clinical benefit, medicines originating in the academic setting were more likely to be graded as conferring clinical benefit than those originating in the commercial setting.

Project description:Depression affects over 300 million individuals worldwide and is responsible for most of the 800,000 annual suicides. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treatment of depression, founded on scientific evidence, are essential to improve patient care. However, economic and sociocultural factors may influence CPG elaboration, potentially leading to divergences in their recommendations. Consequently, we analyzed pharmacological recommendations for the treatment of depression from the most relevant CPGs. We included four CPGs with scores ? 80% for Domain 3 (rigor of development) on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation and two other commonly used CPGs. The recommendations, their strengths, and the level of evidence were extracted from each CPG by two independent researchers and grouped as follows: (1) general recommendations for the pharmacological treatment for depression (suicide risk, acute treatment, continuation and maintenance phases, and treatment discontinuation); (2) treatment of non-responsive or partially responsive patients; and (3) treatment for subtypes of depression (chronic, psychotic, catatonic, melancholic, seasonal, somatic, mixed, and atypical). Only 50% of CPGs included recommendations for the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. All CPGs included serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first-line treatment; however, one CPG also included agomelatine, milnacipran, and mianserin as first-line alternatives. Recommendations for depression subtypes (catatonic, atypical, melancholic) were included in three CPGs. The strength of recommendation and level of evidence clearly differed among CPGs, especially regarding treatment augmentation strategies. We conclude that, although CPGs converged in some recommendations (e.g., SSRIs as first-line treatment), they diverged in cardinal topics including the absence of recommendations regarding the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. Consequently, the recommendations listed in a specific CPG should be followed with caution.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality.Methods and analysisWe will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers.Prospero registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934).

Project description:IntroductionFirst Nations Australians display remarkable strength and resilience despite the intergenerational impacts of ongoing colonisation. The continuing disadvantage is evident in the higher incidence, prevalence, morbidity and mortality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among First Nations Australians. Nationwide community consultation (Kidney Health Australia, Yarning Kidneys, and Lowitja Institute, Catching Some Air) identified priority issues for guideline development. These guidelines uniquely prioritised the knowledge of the community, alongside relevant evidence using an adapted GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to develop specific recommendations for the management of CKD among First Nations Australians.Main recommendationsThese guidelines explicitly state that health systems have to measure, monitor and evaluate institutional racism and link it to cultural safety training, as well as increase community and family involvement in clinical care and equitable transport and accommodation. The guidelines recommend earlier CKD screening criteria (age ≥ 18 years) and referral to specialists services with earlier criteria of kidney function (eg, estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], ≤ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a sustained decrease in eGFR, > 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year) compared with the general population.Changes in management as result of the guidelinesOur recommendations prioritise health care service delivery changes to address institutional racism and ensure meaningful cultural safety training. Earlier detection of CKD and referral to nephrologists for First Nations Australians has been recommended to ensure timely implementation to preserve kidney function given the excess burden of disease. Finally, the importance of community with the recognition of involvement in all aspects and stages of treatment together with increased access to care on Country, particularly in rural and remote locations, including dialysis services.

Project description:Importance:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. Objective:To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. Exposures:Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. Main Outcomes and Measures:Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach ?, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. Results:A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach ??=?0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r?=?0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r?=?0.76). Conclusions and Relevance:This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.

Dataset Information

"Market withdrawals" of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations.

Publications

"Market withdrawals" of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets