Literature DB >> 22676385

Reimbursement decisions of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors.

Warren G Linley1, Dyfrig A Hughes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There have been several explorations of factors influencing the reimbursement decisions of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) but not of other UK-based health technology assessment (HTA) organizations.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the factors influencing the recommendations of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) on the use of new medicines in Wales.
METHODS: Based on public data, logistic regression models were developed to evaluate the influence of cost effectiveness, the quality and quantity of clinical evidence, disease characteristics (including rarity), budget impact, and a range of other factors on the recommendations of AWMSG and its subcommittee, the New Medicines Group (NMG).
RESULTS: Multivariate analyses of 47 AWMSG appraisals between 2007-9 correctly predicted 87% of decisions. The results are suggestive of a positive influence on recommendations of the presence of probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) but, counter-intuitively, a statistically significant negative influence of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [odds ratio 0.059; 95% CI 0.005, 0.699]. This latter observation may be attributed to our strict definition of high quality, which excluded the use of surrogate endpoints. Putative explanatory variables, including cost effectiveness, budget impact, underlying disease characteristics and 'ultra'-orphan drug status were not statistically significant predictors of final AWMSG decisions based on our dataset. Univariate analyses indicate that medicines with negative recommendations had significantly higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than those with positive recommendations, consistent with the pursuit of economic efficiency. There is also evidence that AWMSG considers equity issues via an ultra-orphan drugs policy.
CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of decision uncertainty via PSA appears to positively influence the reimbursement decisions of AWMSG. The significant negative impact of the presence of high-quality RCTs, and the lack of a significant positive impact of other expected factors, may reflect issues in the plausibility of supporting evidence for medicines that received negative recommendations. Furthermore, it serves to emphasize the difficulties in applying the usual hierarchies of evidence to the HTA process, and in particular to the appraisal of high-cost specialist medicines close to market launch.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22676385     DOI: 10.2165/11591530-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  18 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in australia (1991 to 1996).

Authors:  B George; A Harris; A Mitchell
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric?

Authors:  Anne Mason; Michael Drummond; Scott Ramsey; Jonathan Campbell; Dennis Raisch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  "Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making.

Authors:  Helen Angela Dakin; Nancy J Devlin; Isaac A O Odeyemi
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making.

Authors:  Paul Tappenden; John Brazier; Julie Ratcliffe; James Chilcott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions.

Authors:  Michael Rawlins
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-12-20       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports.

Authors:  R S Taylor; J Elston
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.014

7.  Medicines regulation and health technology assessment.

Authors:  A Breckenridge; K Woods; T Walley
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Ireland: a review of the process.

Authors:  Lesley Tilson; Aisling O'Leary; Cara Usher; Michael Barry
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?

Authors:  Lesley Chim; Patrick J Kelly; Glenn Salkeld; Martin R Stockler
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  EVITA: a tool for the early evaluation of pharmaceutical innovations with regard to therapeutic advantage.

Authors:  Isabel Püntmann; Norbert Schmacke; Arne Melander; Gunnar Lindberg; Bernd Mühlbauer
Journal:  BMC Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-03-16
View more
  9 in total

1.  Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness.

Authors:  Mikael Svensson; Fredrik O L Nilsson; Karl Arnberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Peter Ghijben; Yuanyuan Gu; Emily Lancsar; Silva Zavarsek
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  HTA decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: comparison of processes across countries.

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Judith Glennie; Andrea Young; Devidas Menon
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 4.303

4.  Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity.

Authors:  Warren G Linley; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dominika Wranik; Min Hu
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  New Medicines in Wales: The All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) Appraisal Process and Outcomes.

Authors:  Alice Varnava; Robert Bracchi; Karen Samuels; Dyfrig A Hughes; Philip A Routledge
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  What are the impacts of increasing cost-effectiveness Threshold? a protocol on an empirical study based on economic evaluations conducted in Thailand.

Authors:  Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Ryota Nakamura; Hwee Lin Wee; Myka Harun Sarajan; Yi Wang; Budsadee Soboon; Jing Lou; Jia Hui Chai; Wannisa Theantawee; Jutatip Laoharuangchaiyot; Thanakrit Mongkolchaipak; Thanisa Thathong; Pritaporn Kingkaew; Kriang Tungsanga; Yot Teerawattananon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: what (else) matters?

Authors:  Eline Picavet; David Cassiman; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 4.123

9.  An Exploratory Analysis of Predictors of Concordance between Canadian Common Drug Review Reimbursement Recommendations and the Subsequent Decisions by Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Authors:  Michael J Zoratti; Feng Xie; Kristian Thorlund; Nicola Allen; Mitchell Levine
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2020-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.