Factors associated with Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee decisions for listing medicines for diabetes and its associated complications.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mohammad M Haque, Mutsa Gumbie, Megan Gu, Gnanadarsha Dissanayake
{"title":"Factors associated with Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee decisions for listing medicines for diabetes and its associated complications.","authors":"Mohammad M Haque,&nbsp;Mutsa Gumbie,&nbsp;Megan Gu,&nbsp;Gnanadarsha Dissanayake","doi":"10.1071/AH22198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective To retrospectively analyse the key factors associated with listing decisions by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for medicines for diabetes and its complications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Methods The clinical and economic evidence were retrieved from public summary documents (PSD) of all major submissions between July 2005 and March 2020. A multivariate binary logit regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between the categorical explanatory variables and PBAC recommendations. Results We identified a total of 211 PSD of which 118 (56%) were recommended for listing. Clinical and economic uncertainty were significantly and inversely associated with the PBAC recommendation. Submissions with high clinical and economic uncertainty were less likely to be recommended. Conclusion Our findings will enhance the understanding of medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders about the rationale of PBAC reimbursement decisions for these medicines and assist prospective applicant sponsor companies in preparing their submissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":"47 2","pages":"139-147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22198","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To retrospectively analyse the key factors associated with listing decisions by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for medicines for diabetes and its complications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Methods The clinical and economic evidence were retrieved from public summary documents (PSD) of all major submissions between July 2005 and March 2020. A multivariate binary logit regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between the categorical explanatory variables and PBAC recommendations. Results We identified a total of 211 PSD of which 118 (56%) were recommended for listing. Clinical and economic uncertainty were significantly and inversely associated with the PBAC recommendation. Submissions with high clinical and economic uncertainty were less likely to be recommended. Conclusion Our findings will enhance the understanding of medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders about the rationale of PBAC reimbursement decisions for these medicines and assist prospective applicant sponsor companies in preparing their submissions.

与药品福利咨询委员会决定列出糖尿病及其相关并发症的药物相关的因素。
目的回顾性分析药品福利咨询委员会(PBAC)决定将糖尿病及其并发症药物列入药品福利计划的关键因素。方法从2005年7月至2020年3月的所有主要提交的公开摘要文件(PSD)中检索临床和经济证据。采用多元二元logit回归分析来评估分类解释变量与PBAC推荐值之间的关系。结果共鉴定出211个PSD,其中推荐上市118个(56%)。临床和经济不确定性与PBAC推荐值呈显著负相关。具有较高临床和经济不确定性的提交不太可能被推荐。结论:我们的研究结果将提高医疗专业人员、制药公司和其他利益相关者对这些药物的PBAC报销决策的基本原理的理解,并帮助潜在的申请人赞助公司准备他们的申请。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Health Review
Australian Health Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
134
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking. Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry. Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信