Lexchin Joel
School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2015 May 11;5(5):e006816. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006816.
Priority reviews of new drug applications are resource intensive and drugs approved through this process have a greater likelihood of acquiring a serious safety warning compared to drugs approved through the standard process. Therefore, when Health Canada uses priority reviews, it is important that it accurately identifies products that represent a significant therapeutic advance. The purpose of this study is to compare Health Canada's use of priority reviews to therapeutic ratings from two independent organisations, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) and the French drug bulletin Prescrire International, over the period 1 January 1997-31 December 2012.
Cohort study.
Annual reports of the Therapeutic Products Directorate, and the Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate; evaluations of therapeutic innovation from PMPRB and Prescrire International; WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology.
Assessments by PMPRB and Prescrire International treated as a gold standard for postmarket therapeutic value.
Drug-by-drug comparison between the review status from Health Canada and the therapeutic status from PMPRB/Prescrire using κ values, and positive and negative predictive values. Analysis of the per cent of all new drug applications put into the priority review category over the 16-year period.
Health Canada approved 426 new drugs, and 345 were evaluated by PMPRB and/or Prescrire. 91 had a priority review and 52 were assessed as innovative (p=0.0003). Agreement between Health Canada and PMPRB/Prescrire was only fair (κ=0.330). The positive predictive value for Health Canada's review assignments was 36.3% and the negative predictive value was 92.5%.
Health Canada's assignment of a priority approval to a new drug submission is only a fair predictor of the drug's therapeutic value once it is marketed. Health Canada should review its criteria for using priority reviews.
新药申请的优先审评资源密集,与通过标准程序获批的药物相比,通过该程序获批的药物更有可能获得严重安全警告。因此,当加拿大卫生部采用优先审评时,准确识别代表重大治疗进展的产品非常重要。本研究的目的是比较1997年1月1日至2012年12月31日期间加拿大卫生部优先审评的使用情况与两个独立组织——专利药品价格评审委员会(PMPRB)和法国药品公报《Prescrire International》的治疗评级。
队列研究。
治疗产品局和生物制品与基因疗法局的年度报告;PMPRB和《Prescrire International》对治疗创新的评估;世界卫生组织药物统计方法合作中心。
将PMPRB和《Prescrire International》的评估视为上市后治疗价值的金标准。
使用κ值以及阳性和阴性预测值,对加拿大卫生部的审评状态与PMPRB/《Prescrire》的治疗状态进行逐药比较。分析16年期间所有新药申请进入优先审评类别的百分比。
加拿大卫生部批准了426种新药,其中345种由PMPRB和/或《Prescrire》进行了评估。91种进行了优先审评,52种被评估为创新性药物(p = 0.0003)。加拿大卫生部与PMPRB/《Prescrire》之间的一致性仅为中等(κ = 0.330)。加拿大卫生部审评任务的阳性预测值为36.3%,阴性预测值为92.5%。
加拿大卫生部对新药申请给予优先批准,仅能大致预测该药物上市后的治疗价值。加拿大卫生部应审查其使用优先审评的标准。