Literature DB >> 19375890

Systematic reviews reveal unrepresentative evidence for the development of drug formularies for poor and nonwhite populations.

Donna H Odierna1, Lisa A Bero.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore implications of using systematic drug class reviews to develop U.S. Medicaid drug formularies. We assess racial/ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) concordance between Medicaid populations and studies synthesized in Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Review of 32 DERP systematic reviews for subpopulation reporting/analysis and concordance with Medicaid populations.
RESULTS: Among Medicaid recipients in DERP member states and nationally, minorities are overrepresented (21% to 57%) compared with their presence in the population (10% to 30%). Fifty-nine percent of DERP reviews reported insufficient evidence to evaluate drug effects by race/ethnicity or gender. Three percent of reviews found evidence of differential effects by race and 13% by gender. Twenty-four percent found evidence of no difference by race and 9% found no difference by gender. Most of this evidence was described as weak, limited, or of poor quality. Eighty percent of Medicaid recipients are poor or near-poor. DERP does not report on SES.
CONCLUSION: DERP reviews reveal deficiencies of the evidence when applied to Medicaid populations. To increase health equity and provide evidence for policies that serve socially disadvantaged populations, drug trials, and other studies should include more members of these populations. Systematic reviews should include low-SES as a prespecified subgroup.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19375890     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  4 in total

Review 1.  How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

Authors:  Vivian Welch; Peter Tugwell; Mark Petticrew; Joanne de Montigny; Erin Ueffing; Betsy Kristjansson; Jessie McGowan; Maria Benkhalti Jandu; George A Wells; Kevin Brand; Janet Smylie
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-12-08

Review 2.  How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

Authors:  Vivian Welch; Omar Dewidar; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Salman Abdisalam; Abdulah Al Ameer; Victoria I Barbeau; Kevin Brand; Kisanet Kebedom; Maria Benkhalti; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Mohamad Tarek Madani; Alba M Antequera Martín; Christine M Mathew; Jessie McGowan; William McLeod; Hanbyoul Agatha Park; Jennifer Petkovic; Alison Riddle; Peter Tugwell; Mark Petticrew; Jessica Trawin; George A Wells
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-01-18

Review 3.  Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles.

Authors:  Susan R Forsyth; Donna H Odierna; David Krauth; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2014-11-18

4.  Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials.

Authors:  Vivian Welch; J Jull; J Petkovic; R Armstrong; Y Boyer; L G Cuervo; Sjl Edwards; A Lydiatt; D Gough; J Grimshaw; E Kristjansson; L Mbuagbaw; J McGowan; D Moher; T Pantoja; M Petticrew; K Pottie; T Rader; B Shea; M Taljaard; E Waters; C Weijer; G A Wells; H White; M Whitehead; P Tugwell
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 7.327

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.