• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

药品福利计划及其对儿科处方的影响。

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and implications for paediatric prescribing.

作者信息

Sinha Yashwant, Brien Jo-Anne E, Craig Jonathan C

机构信息

Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

J Paediatr Child Health. 2009 Jun;45(6):351-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01500.x. Epub 2009 May 28.

DOI:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01500.x
PMID:19490409
Abstract

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions on access to medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for children.

METHODS

We analysed all public summary documents from PBAC meetings from July 2005 to November 2006 and compared these with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recommendations for children for the same medicine. Main outcome measures stratified by age, the total number of medicines for specific indications (accepted and rejected) by therapeutic class; estimated cost to the PBS per annum for each medicine recommended for listing; comparison of TGA-approved product information and PBS listing for recommended medicines.

RESULTS

Of the 102 medicines for specific indications considered by the PBAC, 7% (7/102) of submissions were for new paediatric indications. Most submissions (60%, 61/102) did not specify age for the PBS recommendation and were for conditions which only affect adults. Listings which specifically included children were more likely to have a positive PBAC recommendation. Of the six recommended medicines for children, four were estimated to cost between $10-30 million per year. There was fair concordance between PBS- and TGA-approved product information for age (kappa 0.21) but in 46%, PBAC recommendations were for age-unrestricted listing compared with adults-only use in the TGA-approved product information.

CONCLUSION

Access to new subsidised medicines for children in Australia lags behind adults because most applications to the PBAC for new medicines are for conditions which only affect adults. PBS processes facilitate access for children to new medicines by avoiding age restrictions.

摘要

目的

评估药品福利咨询委员会(PBAC)的决策对儿童获取药品福利计划(PBS)所列药物的影响。

方法

我们分析了2005年7月至2006年11月PBAC会议的所有公开总结文件,并将其与治疗用品管理局(TGA)针对同一种药物的儿童用药建议进行比较。主要结局指标按年龄分层,按治疗类别列出特定适应症(获批和被拒)的药物总数;每种推荐列入PBS的药物每年的PBS估计成本;比较TGA批准的产品信息和PBS对推荐药物的列名情况。

结果

在PBAC审议的102种特定适应症药物中,7%(7/102)的申请是针对新的儿科适应症。大多数申请(60%,61/102)在PBS推荐中未指定年龄,且针对的是仅影响成人的病症。特别包括儿童的列名更有可能获得PBAC的积极推荐。在六种推荐给儿童的药物中,有四种估计每年成本在1000万至3000万美元之间。PBS和TGA批准的年龄相关产品信息之间存在一定程度的一致性(kappa值为0.21),但在46%的情况下,PBAC的推荐是无年龄限制列名,而TGA批准的产品信息中仅适用于成人。

结论

澳大利亚儿童获取新的补贴药物的情况落后于成人,因为向PBAC提交的大多数新药申请针对的是仅影响成人的病症。PBS程序通过避免年龄限制促进了儿童获取新药。

相似文献

1
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and implications for paediatric prescribing.药品福利计划及其对儿科处方的影响。
J Paediatr Child Health. 2009 Jun;45(6):351-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01500.x. Epub 2009 May 28.
2
Are Australians able to access new medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in a more or less timely manner? An analysis of pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee recommendations, 1999-2003.澳大利亚人能否在药品福利计划下或多或少及时获取新药?对1999年至2003年药品福利咨询委员会建议的分析。
Value Health. 2006 Jul-Aug;9(4):205-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00104.x.
3
Delays in access to affordable medicines: putting policy into perspective.获取平价药品的延误:审视政策
Aust Health Rev. 2012 Nov;36(4):412-8. doi: 10.1071/AH11110.
4
PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA.澳大利亚药品福利咨询委员会的建议。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(4):521-528. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000617. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
5
Analysis of PBAC submissions and outcomes for medicines (2010-2018).药品 (2010-2018 年) 医保药物评审局受理申请及结果分析。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Jun;36(3):224-231. doi: 10.1017/S026646232000029X. Epub 2020 Jun 11.
6
Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.澳大利亚药品福利计划中的循证决策。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;60:1-13.
7
Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?在澳大利亚,癌症药物被药品福利咨询委员会推荐列入医保目录的可能性是否更低?
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):463-75. doi: 10.2165/11533000-000000000-00000.
8
Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland.加拿大、澳大利亚和苏格兰的医疗费用报销建议。
Am J Manag Care. 2008 Sep;14(9):581-8.
9
Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia.药品与媒体:澳大利亚政府推荐报销药品的新闻报道。
BMC Public Health. 2013 May 21;13:489. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-489.
10
Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia.这一切都关乎价格吗?为何澳大利亚政府对抗癌药物补贴的申请遭到拒绝。
Intern Med J. 2017 Apr;47(4):400-407. doi: 10.1111/imj.13350.