• 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

对在澳大利亚上市的新药的治疗价值评估。

Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia.

作者信息

Vitry Agnes I, Shin Ng Huah, Vitre Pauline

机构信息

Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom Institute for Health Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

出版信息

J Pharm Policy Pract. 2013 Jun 13;6:2. doi: 10.1186/2052-3211-6-2. eCollection 2013.

DOI:10.1186/2052-3211-6-2
PMID:24764537
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3987060/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The belief that all new medicines bring a therapeutic innovation and better health outcomes is widely shared among the public, health professionals and policy makers.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia using two classification systems.

METHODS

The therapeutic value of new medicines was categorised using the Motola's s and the Ahlqvist-Rastad's systems for all approvals made by the Australian Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) between 2005 and 2007. Scores were assigned independently by the three authors on the basis of the Public Summary Documents and Prescrire' review articles.

RESULTS

Overall, 217 approval recommendations were made including 81 (37.3%) for new indications and 69 (31.8%) for new medicines. In Motola's rating system, 31 (52.5%) of the 59 drugs were rated as pharmacological or technological innovations and 28 (47.5%) were rated as therapeutic innovations. Only seven of the 59 drugs (11.9%) were rated as important innovations. In Ahlqvist-Rastad's system, only a third of the new drugs were rated as "added therapeutic value".

CONCLUSION

Only a minority of the new medicines marketed in Australia provide added therapeutic value compared to existing treatments. Stricter regulatory approval criteria would ensure better safety of the public and simplify the reimbursement processes.

摘要

背景

公众、医疗专业人员和政策制定者普遍认为,所有新药都能带来治疗创新并改善健康结果。

目的

使用两种分类系统研究在澳大利亚上市的新药的治疗价值。

方法

采用莫托拉(Motola)和阿尔奎斯特 - 拉斯塔德(Ahlqvist-Rastad)的系统,对澳大利亚治疗用品管理局(TGA)在2005年至2007年期间批准的所有新药的治疗价值进行分类。三位作者根据公开摘要文件和《Prescrire》评论文章独立打分。

结果

总体而言,共提出了217项批准建议,其中81项(37.3%)用于新适应症,69项(31.8%)用于新药。在莫托拉的评级系统中,59种药物中有31种(52.5%)被评为药理学或技术创新,28种(47.5%)被评为治疗创新。59种药物中只有7种(11.9%)被评为重要创新。在阿尔奎斯特 - 拉斯塔德的系统中,只有三分之一的新药被评为“增加治疗价值”。

结论

与现有治疗方法相比,在澳大利亚上市的新药中只有少数具有增加的治疗价值。更严格的监管批准标准将确保公众有更好的安全性,并简化报销流程。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0a5f/3987060/cc1dacb58a5a/2052-3211-6-2-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0a5f/3987060/cc1dacb58a5a/2052-3211-6-2-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0a5f/3987060/cc1dacb58a5a/2052-3211-6-2-1.jpg

相似文献

1
Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia.对在澳大利亚上市的新药的治疗价值评估。
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2013 Jun 13;6:2. doi: 10.1186/2052-3211-6-2. eCollection 2013.
2
Use of priority and provisional approval pathways by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration in approving new medicines: a cross-sectional study.澳大利亚治疗商品管理局在批准新药方面使用优先和临时批准途径:一项横断面研究。
Aust Health Rev. 2022 Jun;46(3):309-315. doi: 10.1071/AH22008.
3
How Data Packages Lacking Phase III Pivotal Trial Data Can Support Regulatory Approval and Reimbursement for Oncologics in Australia.缺乏III期关键试验数据的数据包如何支持澳大利亚肿瘤药物的监管批准和报销。
Value Health Reg Issues. 2015 May;6:143-149. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2015.03.021. Epub 2015 May 28.
4
"Drugs to avoid" to improve quality use of medicines: how is Australia faring?“避免使用的药物”以提高药品合理使用水平:澳大利亚进展如何?
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2021 Jul 13;14(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s40545-021-00346-3.
5
Association between FDA and EMA expedited approval programs and therapeutic value of new medicines: retrospective cohort study.FDA 和 EMA 加速审批计划与新药的治疗价值之间的关联:回顾性队列研究。
BMJ. 2020 Oct 7;371:m3434. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3434.
6
Potential therapeutic value of new drugs approved in Australia: a retrospective cohort study.澳大利亚批准新药的潜在治疗价值:一项回顾性队列研究。
Aust Health Rev. 2023 Apr;47(2):203-207. doi: 10.1071/AH22280.
7
The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Medicine and Medical Devices Safety Authority in evaluating complementary and alternative medicines in Australia and New Zealand.澳大利亚治疗用品管理局以及新西兰药品与医疗器械安全管理局在评估补充和替代药物方面所发挥的作用。
Toxicology. 2006 Apr 3;221(1):88-94. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2005.12.023. Epub 2006 Feb 14.
8
Caution needed in introduction of provisional approvals for medicines.药品临时批准的引入需谨慎。
Intern Med J. 2017 Nov;47(11):1321-1324. doi: 10.1111/imj.13605.
9
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.
10
How to anticipate the assessment of the public health benefit of new medicines?如何预测对新药公共卫生效益的评估?
Therapie. 2007 Sep-Oct;62(5):427-35. doi: 10.2515/therapie:2007071. Epub 2008 Jan 19.

引用本文的文献

1
"Drugs to avoid" to improve quality use of medicines: how is Australia faring?“避免使用的药物”以提高药品合理使用水平:澳大利亚进展如何?
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2021 Jul 13;14(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s40545-021-00346-3.
2
Canadian status of "drugs to avoid" in 2017: a descriptive analysis.2017年加拿大“避免使用的药物”状况:描述性分析
CMAJ Open. 2018 Sep 28;6(3):E430-E435. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20180049. Print 2018 Jul-Sep.
3
Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia.对在澳大利亚上市的新药的治疗价值评估。

本文引用的文献

1
Toward a definition of pharmaceutical innovation.迈向药物创新的定义。
Open Med. 2008;2(1):e4-7. Epub 2008 Jan 30.
2
A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group.评估药物安全性和疗效的定量风险效益方法学综述——ISPOR 风险效益管理工作组的报告。
Value Health. 2010 Aug;13(5):657-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00725.x. Epub 2010 Apr 15.
3
Superior efficacy of new medicines?新药疗效更好?
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2013 Sep 10;6:7. doi: 10.1186/2052-3211-6-7. eCollection 2013.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 May;66(5):445-8. doi: 10.1007/s00228-010-0808-3. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
4
Building comparative efficacy and tolerability into the FDA approval process.将比较疗效和耐受性纳入美国食品药品监督管理局的批准流程。
JAMA. 2010 Mar 10;303(10):979-80. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.257.
5
Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers.药物的相对疗效:监管机构与第三方支付者之间的一个新兴问题。
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010 Apr;9(4):277-91. doi: 10.1038/nrd3079. Epub 2010 Feb 26.
6
Medicines regulation and health technology assessment.药品监管与卫生技术评估。
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Feb;87(2):152-4. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2009.261.
7
Incremental advance or seismic shift? The need to raise the bar of efficacy for drug approval.渐进式进步还是重大变革?提高药物审批效力标准的必要性。
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 10;27(35):5868-73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4162. Epub 2009 Oct 13.
8
Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.利用有效性和成本效益来做出药物覆盖范围决策:英国、澳大利亚和加拿大的比较
JAMA. 2009 Oct 7;302(13):1437-43. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1409.
9
How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question.生命价值几何:西妥昔单抗、非小细胞肺癌与那4400亿美元的问题
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 5;101(15):1044-8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp177. Epub 2009 Jun 29.
10
What is fair? Choice, fairness, and transparency in access to prescription medicines in the United States and Australia.何为公平?美国和澳大利亚处方药获取方面的选择、公平性与透明度。
J Law Med Ethics. 2007 Winter;35(4):643-56, 512-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00187.x.