-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: -There is ongoing controversy regarding the safety and effectiveness of metformin in the setting of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of the trial and non-trial evidence for metformin in patients with diabetes and HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: -We conducted a comprehensive search for controlled studies evaluating the association between metformin and morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes and HF. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data, and evaluated quality. Risk estimates were abstracted and pooled where appropriate. As measures of overall safety we examined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. Nine cohort studies were included; no RCTs were identified. Most (5 of 9) studies were published in 2010, and were of good quality. Metformin was associated with reduced mortality compared to controls (mostly sulfonylurea therapy): 23% vs 37%, pooled adjusted risk estimates 0.80, 0.74-0.87; I(2)=15%, P<0.001). No increased risk was observed for metformin in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (mortality pooled adjusted risk estimate 0.91, 0.72 to 1.14, I(2)=0%, P=0.34) nor in those with HF and chronic kidney disease (pooled adjusted risk estimate 0.81, 0.64-1.02, P=0.08). Metformin was associated with a small reduction in all-cause hospitalizations (pooled estimate 0.93, 0.89-0.98, I(2)=0%, P=0.01). Metformin was not associated with increased risk of lactic acidosis. CONCLUSIONS: -The totality of evidence indicates that metformin is at least as safe as other glucose lowering treatments in patients with diabetes and HF, even in those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD). Until trial data becomes available, metformin should be considered the treatment of choice for those with diabetes and HF.
Circulation Heart Failure 03/2013; · 6.29 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Administrative databases that only capture records for benefit-approved prescriptions may underestimate exposure because they do not capture non-benefit prescriptions. Using a natural experiment, we illustrate the impact of automating a prior-authorization policy on the completeness of drug exposure. METHODS: Using Saskatchewan (Canada) databases, weekly counts of benefit-approved and total prescription records in 2006 for new users of antidiabetic agents were examined across four categories: thiazolidinediones (TZDs), metformin, glyburide, and insulin. On July 1, 2006, Saskatchewan's public drug plan implemented an automated, online-adjudicated, prior-authorization process for TZDs; previously, prior approval was paper based. No such policy changes occurred for other drugs. We estimated the effect of this policy change on drug exposure using interrupted time-series analyses. RESULTS: We examined 223 552 prescription records: 19% were for TZDs, 48% for metformin, 20% for glyburide, and 13% for insulin. Prior to automation, there were, on average, 571 benefit-approved TZD records per week; however, the number of benefit-approved TZD records increased immediately after the automated process was introduced by 240 prescriptions per week (95% CI 200-280, p < 0.001). The average proportion of TZD benefit-approved records was 73% before and increased to 93% immediately following policy change (20% absolute change, 95% CI 18.7-20.4%). No changes were observed for metformin, glyburide, or insulin (p > 0.1 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Automating prior authorization for TZDs immediately increased the proportion of captured TZD records, suggesting in our study that one-fifth of TZD exposure was previously misclassified. If replicable, this indicates that even subtle changes in reimbursement policy may affect the validity of drug exposure data. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 03/2013; · 2.53 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Vertebral fractures detected "incidentally" by chest radiograph usually do not trigger osteoporosis treatment in older patients. In a 3-arm controlled trial we reported that both physician-directed and enhanced (physician plus patient activation) interventions increased treatment rates more than 10-fold (15%-20% absolute increases) compared with usual care; the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. METHODS: Incremental cost-effectiveness of these 2 interventions compared with usual care was assessed using a Markov decision-analytic model, populated with 1-year outcomes data and direct intervention costs from the trial. Costs were expressed in 2009 Canadian dollars and effectiveness based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The perspective was health care payer; horizon was projected lifetime; costs and benefits were discounted at 3%; and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Per patient, the physician and enhanced interventions cost $34 and $42, respectively. Compared with usual care, for every 1000 patients exposed to the physican intervention there were 4 fewer fractures, 8 more QALYs gained, and $282,000 saved. Compared with physician interventions, for every 1000 patients exposed to enhanced interventions there were 6 fewer fractures, 6 more QALYs gained, and $339,000 saved. Both interventions dominated usual care and were cost-effective in ∼80% of 10,000 probabilistic simulations. Although the enhanced intervention cost $8 more per patient, it still dominated the physician intervention and usual care, and was the most economically attractive option. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic and inexpensive interventions directed at patients with incidentally detected vertebral fractures and their physicians are highly cost-effective at improving osteoporosis treatment, and in most circumstances also are cost-saving.
The American journal of medicine 02/2013; 126(2):169.e9-169.e17. · 4.47 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Antiplatelet therapy is recommended as part of a strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, compliance with these guideline-recommended therapies appears to be less than ideal.OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of adding pharmacists to primary care teams on initiation of guideline-concordant antiplatelet therapy in type 2 diabetic patients.METHODS:Prespecified secondary analysis of randomized trial data. In the main study, the pharmacist intervention included a complete medication history, limited physical examination, provision of guideline-concordant recommendations to the physician to optimize drug therapy, and 1-year follow-up. Controls received usual care without pharmacist interactions. Patients with an indication for antiplatelet therapy, but not using an antiplatelet drug at randomization were included in this substudy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients using an antiplatelet drug at 1 year.RESULTS:At randomization, 257 of 260 study patients had guideline-concordant indications for antiplatelet therapy, but less than half (121; 47%) were using an antiplatelet drug. Overall, 136 patients met inclusion criteria for the substudy (71 intervention and 65 controls): 60% were women, with mean (SD) age 58.0 (11.9) years, diabetes duration 5.3 (6.0) years, and hemoglobin A(1c) 7.6% (1.5). Sixteen(12%) had established cardiovascular disease at enrollment. At 1 year, 43 (61%) intervention patients and 15 (23%) controls were using an antiplatelet drug (38% absolute difference; number needed to treat, 3; relative increase, 2.6; 95% CI 1.5-4.7; p < 0.001). Of these 58 patients, 52 (90%) were using aspirin 81 mg daily.CONCLUSIONS:Adding pharmacists to primary care teams significantly and substantially increased the proportion of type 2 diabetic patients using guideline-concordant antiplatelet therapy.
Annals of Pharmacotherapy 01/2013; · 2.13 Impact Factor
-
Diabetes research and clinical practice 09/2012; 98(1):1-2. · 2.16 Impact Factor
-
Sumit R Majumdar,
Finlay A McAlister, Jeffrey A Johnson,
Debbie Bellerose,
Kerry Siminoski,
David A Hanley,
Ibrahim Qazi,
Douglas A Lier,
Robert G Lambert,
Anthony S Russell,
Brian H Rowe
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most vertebral compression fractures are not recognized or treated. We conducted a controlled trial in older patients with vertebral fractures incidentally reported on chest radiographs, comparing usual care with osteoporosis interventions directed at physicians (opinion-leader-endorsed evidence summaries and reminders) or physicians+patients (adding activation with leaflets and telephone counseling).
Patients aged >60 years who were discharged home from emergency departments and who had vertebral fractures reported but were not treated for osteoporosis were allocated to usual care (control) or physician intervention using alternate-week time series. After 3 months, untreated controls were re-allocated to physician+patient intervention. Allocation was concealed, outcomes ascertainment blinded, and analyses intent-to-treat. Primary outcome was starting osteoporosis treatment within 3 months.
There were 1315 consecutive patients screened, and 240 allocated to control (n=123) or physician intervention (n=117). Groups were similar at baseline (average age 74 years, 45% female, 58% previous fractures). Compared with controls, physician interventions significantly (all P <.001) increased osteoporosis treatment (20 [17%] vs 2 [2%]), bone mineral density testing (51 [44%] vs 5 [4%]), and bone mineral density testing or treatment (57 [49%] vs 7 [6%]). Three months after controls were re-allocated to physician+patient interventions, 22% had started treatment and 65% had bone mineral density testing or treatment (P <.001 vs controls). Physician+patient interventions increased bone mineral density testing or treatment an additional 16% compared with physician interventions (P=.01).
An opinion-leader-based intervention targeting physicians substantially improved rates of bone mineral density testing and osteoporosis treatment in patients with incidental vertebral fractures, compared with usual care. Even better osteoporosis management was achieved by adding patient activation to physician interventions [NCT00388908].
The American journal of medicine 09/2012; 125(9):929-36. · 4.47 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 40% increased risk of bladder cancer. Thiazolidinediones, especially pioglitazone, may increase the risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of bladder cancer among adults with type 2 diabetes taking thiazolidinediones.
We searched key biomedical databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus) and sources of grey literature from inception through March 2012 for published and unpublished studies, without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies that reported incident bladder cancer among people with type 2 diabetes who ever (v. never) were exposed to pioglitazone (main outcome), rosiglitazone or any thiazolidinedione.
Of the 1787 studies identified, we selected 4 RCTs, 5 cohort studies and 1 case-control study. The total number of patients was 2 657 365, of whom 3643 had newly diagnosed bladder cancer, for an overall incidence of 53.1 per 100 000 person-years. The one RCT that reported on pioglitazone use found no significant association with bladder cancer (risk ratio [RR] 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-6.13). The cohort studies of thiazolidinediones (pooled RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.26; I(2) = 0%) and of pioglitazone specifically (pooled RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39; I(2) = 0%) showed significant associations with bladder cancer. No significant association with bladder cancer was observed in the two RCTs that evaluated rosiglitazone use (pooled RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34-2.23; I(2) = 0%).
The limited evidence available supports the hypothesis that thiazolidinediones, particularly pioglitazone, are associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer among adults with type 2 diabetes.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 07/2012; 184(12):E675-83. · 8.22 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Drugs reimbursed through a single-party payer such as health maintenance organizations or provincial governments are generally captured in administrative data if they have full-benefit status on that payer's formulary. However, drugs subject to restrictive drug coverage policies are often not fully captured if patients receive these drugs through mechanisms other than the single-payer formulary.
The goal of this study was to estimate the association between restrictive drug coverage and drug exposure misclassification across the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which provide universal coverage for formulary-approved drugs to all citizens regardless of age or socioeconomic status.
Monthly dispensations were compared for 75 drugs between 2005 and 2008 from Canada's National Prescription Drug Utilization System database, which captures provincial drug formulary claims only, versus the IMS Brogan CompuScript Database, which captures all drug dispensations irrespective of formulary status. The association between restrictive drug coverage and drug exposure misclassification was measured using generalized estimating equations and multivariable adjustment.
On average, 84% of monthly retail drug dispensations were captured by provincial claims data: 100% of monthly dispensations were captured for drugs with full-benefit status but only 61% of dispensations for drugs with restrictive drug coverage (adjusted risk ratio = 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.75]). The direction and magnitude of the potential misclassification bias between full-benefit and restricted policy drugs were consistent across all drug classes examined: acid-reducing drugs (97% vs 66%), analgesics (89% vs 64%), central nervous system drugs (103% vs 61%), cardiovascular drugs (100% vs 57%), diabetes drugs (98% vs 61%), osteoporosis drugs (96% vs 57%), and respiratory drugs (112% vs 60%).
Drugs subject to restrictive coverage policies are substantially under-captured in administrative databases, leading to potential drug exposure misclassification in pharmacoepidemiologic studies relying on administrative databases. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies should clearly describe whether evaluated drugs are available as full benefits or subject to restrictive coverage policies and the potential impact on their results.
Clinical Therapeutics 05/2012; 34(6):1379-1386.e3. · 2.32 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Whether access to primary and specialist care has an impact on treatment for people with schizophrenia and comorbid cardiac disease is unclear. The objective of this study was to compare use of general health care and specialized cardiac care by people with schizophrenia and by the rest of the population.
A population-based period-prevalence study was conducted and included adults (N=2,310,391) in Alberta, Canada, by using administrative databases. People with schizophrenia were identified based on billing codes; all others served as the comparator cohort. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to compare claims for general (general practitioner visits) health care, urgent and emergent (emergency department visits and hospitalizations) health services, and specialized cardiac (cardiologist visits, revascularization) care.
Individuals with schizophrenia (N=28,755) had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease than those without schizophrenia (N=2,281,636) (20% versus 14%) and were more likely than those without schizophrenia to visit a general practitioner more than four times per year (76% versus 47%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.49-3.71). In contrast, individuals with schizophrenia and coronary artery disease were less likely to visit a cardiologist (50% versus 59%; AOR=. 76, 95% CI=.72-.80) or undergo coronary revascularization (6% versus 12%; AOR=. 55, 95% CI=.49-.61).
In this large population-based study, individuals with schizophrenia were less likely to visit cardiologists or undergo revascularization than were people without schizophrenia. Opportunities exist for better assessment and management of cardiovascular disease and risk factors among people with schizophrenia.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 03/2012; 63(3):237-42. · 2.81 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of several types of cancer and with reduced survival after cancer diagnosis. We examined the hypotheses that survival after a diagnosis of solid-tumor cancer is reduced in those with diabetes when compared with those without diabetes, and that treatment with metformin influences survival after cancer diagnosis.
Data were obtained from >350 U.K. primary care practices in a retrospective cohort study. All individuals with or without diabetes who developed a first tumor after January 1990 were identified and records were followed to December 2009. Diabetes was further stratified by treatment regimen. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare all-cause mortality from all cancers and from specific cancers.
Of 112,408 eligible individuals, 8,392 (7.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Cancer mortality was increased in those with diabetes, compared with those without (hazard ratio 1.09 [95% CI 1.06-1.13]). Mortality was increased in those with breast (1.32 [1.17-1.49]) and prostate cancer (1.19 [1.08-1.31]) but decreased in lung cancer (0.84 [0.77-0.92]). When analyzed by diabetes therapy, mortality was increased relative to nondiabetes in those on monotherapy with sulfonylureas (1.13 [1.05-1.21]) or insulin (1.13 [1.01-1.27]) but reduced in those on metformin monotherapy (0.85 [0.78-0.93]).
This study confirmed that type 2 diabetes was associated with poorer prognosis after incident cancer, but that the association varied according to diabetes therapy and cancer site. Metformin was associated with survival benefit both in comparison with other treatments for diabetes and in comparison with a nondiabetic population.
Diabetes care 02/2012; 35(2):299-304. · 8.09 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Drug exposure misclassification may occur in administrative databases when individuals obtain nonreimbursed drugs by paying "out-of-pocket" or via alternative drug coverage plans. We examined the apparent association between oral antidiabetic therapy and mortality by simulating the effects of restrictive drug coverage policies.
Population-based cohort study of 12,272 new patients using oral antidiabetic agents were identified using the administrative databases of Saskatchewan Health, 1991 to 1996. We randomly misclassified 0% [base case], 10%, 25%, and 50% of known patients taking metformin according to either overt drug exposure (e.g., metformin users switched to nonusers) or time of metformin initiation (e.g., delayed capture of exposure); thereby simulating the use of a "non-formulary" or "special authorization" policy, respectively. We also simulated an age-dependent coverage policy, mimicking a policy restricted to seniors.
Metformin use was associated with lower mortality compared with sulfonylurea use in the base case (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.99) and the nonformulary simulations. The special authorization simulations demonstrated, however, an increasing relative mortality hazard of metformin versus sulfonylurea exposure: aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.96-0.97 and aHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37, for 10% and 50% delays in coverage capture respectively when 50% of metformin users were misclassified. Age-dependent drug coverage had a variable impact on mortality risk compared with the base-case cohort; however, a new-user simulation with a 1-year washout revealed consistent results to the base-case analysis.
Restrictive drug coverage policies may result in substantial drug exposure misclassification, potentially severely biasing the results of drug-outcome relationships using administrative databases.
Value in Health 01/2012; 15(1):191-7. · 2.19 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To track and compare trends in diabetes rates from 1995 to 2007 for Status Aboriginal and general population youth.
Longitudinal observational research study (quantitative) using provincial administrative data.
De-identified data was obtained from Alberta Health and Wellness administrative databases for Status Aboriginal (First Nations and Inuit people with Treaty status) and general population youth (<20 years). Diabetes cases were identified using the National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm. Crude annual diabetes prevalence and incidence rates were calculated. The likelihood of being a prevalent case and incident case of diabetes for the 2 populations was compared for the year 2007. Average Annual Percent Changes (AAPC) in prevalence and incidence from 1995 to 2007 were determined and compared between the 2 groups to examine trends over time.
While the prevalence of diabetes was higher in the general population in 1995, by 2007 there were no between group differences, reflected in the significantly higher AAPC of 6.98 for Status Aboriginal youth. Status Aboriginal males had a lower diabetes risk in 1995 compared with females, and experienced a greater increase in prevalence over the 13 years (AAPC 9.18) so that by 2007 their rates were equivalent to those of the females. Differences in diabetes incidence trends were only observed among male youth, where increases in incidence were greater for Status Aboriginal (AAPC 11.65) compared to general population males (AAPC 4.62) (p = 0.03).
Youth-onset diabetes is an increasing problem in Alberta, especially among young Status Aboriginal males.
International journal of circumpolar health. 01/2012; 71:1-7.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Limited evidence exists on the determinants of quality of life (QoL) specific to adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Further, it appears no study has compared the determinants of QoL between T1D and type 2 diabetes (T2D) groups. The objectives of this study were to examine: (1) determinants of QoL in adults with T1D; and, (2) differences in QoL determinants between T1D and T2D groups.
The Alberta Longitudinal Exercise and Diabetes Research Advancement (ALEXANDRA) study, a longitudinal study of adults with diabetes in Alberta, Canada. Adults (18 years and older) with T1D (N = 490) and T2D (N = 1,147) provided information on demographics (gender, marital status, education, and annual income), personality (activity trait), medical factors (diabetes duration, insulin use, number of comorbidities, and body mass index), lifestyle behaviors (smoking habits, physical activity, and diet), health-related quality of life (HRQL) and life satisfaction. Multiple regression models identified determinants of HRQL and life satisfaction in adults with T1D. These determinants were compared with determinants for T2D adults reported in a previous study from this population data set. Factors significantly associated with HRQL and life satisfaction in either T1D or T2D groups were further tested for interaction with diabetes type.
In adults with T1D, higher activity trait (personality) score (β = 0.28, p < 0.01), fewer comorbidities (β = -0.27, p < 0.01), lower body mass index (BMI)(β = -0.12, p < 0.01), being a non-smoker (β = -0.14, p < 0.01), and higher physical activity levels (β = 0.16, p < 0.01) were associated with higher HRQL. Having a partner (β = 0.11, p < 0.05), high annual income (β = 0.16, p < 0.01), and high activity trait (personality) score (β = 0.27, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with higher life satisfaction. There was a significant age × diabetes type interaction for HRQL. The T2D group had a stronger positive relationship between advancing age and HRQL compared to the T1D group. No interaction was significant for life satisfaction.
Health services should target medical and lifestyle factors and provide support for T1D adults to increase their QoL. Additional social support for socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals living with this disease may be warranted. Health practitioners should also be aware that age has different effects on QoL between T1D and T2D adults.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 12/2011; 9:115. · 2.11 Impact Factor
-
Braden J Manns,
Marcello Tonelli,
Jianguo Zhang,
David J T Campbell,
Peter Sargious,
Bharati Ayyalasomayajula,
Fiona Clement, Jeffrey A Johnson,
Andreas Laupacis,
Richard Lewanczuk,
Kerry McBrien,
Brenda R Hemmelgarn
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Primary care networks are a newer model of primary care that focuses on improved access to care and the use of multidisciplinary teams for patients with chronic disease. We sought to determine the association between enrolment in primary care networks and the care and outcomes of patients with diabetes.
We used administrative health care data to study the care and outcomes of patients with incident and prevalent diabetes separately. For patients with prevalent diabetes, we compared those whose care was managed by physicians who were or were not in a primary care network using propensity score matching. For patients with incident diabetes, we studied a cohort before and after primary care networks were established. Each cohort was further divided based on whether or not patients were cared for by physicians enrolled in a network. Our primary outcome was admissions to hospital or visits to emergency departments for ambulatory care sensitive conditions specific to diabetes.
Compared with patients whose prevalent diabetes is managed outside of primary care networks, patients in primary care networks had a lower rate of diabetes-specific ambulatory care sensitive conditions (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 0.87), were more likely to see an ophthalmologist or optometrist (risk ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.21) and had better glycemic control (adjusted mean difference -0.067, 95% CI -0.081 to -0.052).
Patients whose diabetes was managed in primary care networks received better care and had better clinical outcomes than patients whose condition was not managed in a network, although the differences were very small.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 12/2011; 184(2):E144-52. · 8.22 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the risk of breast cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. Cox regression, stratified by pre- (<55 years) and postmenopausal (≥55 years) status, was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for breast cancer, during earlier (0-3 months) and later (3 months to 10 years) time windows after diabetes index date.
Compared with women without T2D, HRs for breast cancer were 0.95 (95% CI 0.48-1.86; P = 0.88) and 1.31 (0.92-1.86; P = 0.14) in pre- and postmenopausal women with T2D, respectively, in the early time window, and 0.92 (0.75-1.13; P = 0.45) and 1.00 (0.90-1.11; P = 0.93) in pre- and postmenopausal women with T2D, respectively, in the later time window.
We observed a trend toward an increased risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women with T2D, but only in the time period immediately after diabetes index date.
Diabetes care 12/2011; 34(12):2542-4. · 8.09 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Canada's Common Drug Review was implemented to provide publicly funded drug plans (provincial and federal) with a transparent, rigorous and consistent approach for assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new drugs. We compared uptake of drug coverage across jurisdictions before and after the implementation of the Common Drug Review.
Using the IMS Brogan formulary acceptance: monitoring and evaluation database, we identified new drug products in Canada five years before and five years after the first recommendation was made by the Common Drug Review. For each jurisdiction, we compared the proportion of drugs listed, the median time-to-listing and the agreement between the listing decisions of the drug plans and the recommendations of the Common Drug Review.
We identified 198 new drugs approved for use in Canada between May 26, 1999, and May 27, 2009, of which 53 had a recommendation from the Common Drug Review. The proportion of drugs listed decreased after the introduction of the Common Drug Review for all participating drug plans (81.1% to 71.3% overall [p ≤ 0.01 for all plans, with the exceptions of Ontario and Quebec [p = 0.07]). The change in median time-to-listing between the periods before and after the Common Drug Review varied by jurisdiction, ranging from a decrease of 691 days to an increase of 250 days. The change in median time-to-listing was not statistically significant for most jurisdictions, with the exceptions of Saskatchewan (increased, Mann-Whitney U test p = 0.01) and New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador (all decreased, Mann-Whitney U test p < 0.01).
There was a decline in the proportion of new drugs listed after the introduction of the Common Drug Review for both participating and nonparticipating jurisdictions. The introduction of the review was associated with a decreased time-to-listing for certain smaller provinces.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2011; 183(17):E1259-66. · 8.22 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Little is known about longitudinal trends in diabetes mellitus among Aboriginal people in Canada. We compared the incidence and prevalence of diabetes, and its impact on mortality, among status Aboriginal adults and adults in the general population between 1995 and 2007.
We examined de-identified data from Alberta Health and Wellness administrative databases for status Aboriginal people (First Nations and Inuit people with treaty status) and members of the general public aged 20 years and older who received a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus from Apr. 1, 1995, to Mar. 31, 2007. We calculated the incidence and prevalence of diabetes and mortality rate ratios by sex and ethnicity in 2007. We examined the average relative changes per year for longitudinal trends.
The average relative change per year in the prevalence of diabetes showed a smaller increase over time in the Aboriginal population than in the general population (2.39 v. 4.09, p < 0.001). A similar finding was observed for the incidence of diabetes. In the Aboriginal population, we found that the increase in the average relative change per year was greater among men than among women (3.13 v. 1.88 for prevalence, p < 0.001; 2.60 v. 0.02 for incidence, p = 0.001). Mortality among people with diabetes decreased over time to a similar extent in both populations. Among people without diabetes, mortality decreased in the general population but was unchanged in the Aboriginal population (-1.92 v. 0.11, p = 0.04). Overall, mortality was higher in the Aboriginal population than in the general population regardless of diabetes status.
The increases in the incidence and prevalence of diabetes over the study period appeared to be slower in the status Aboriginal population than in the general population in Alberta, although the overall rates were higher in the Aboriginal population. Mortality decreased among people with diabetes in both populations but was higher overall in the Aboriginal population regardless of diabetes status.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 07/2011; 183(12):E803-8. · 8.22 Impact Factor
-
Archives of internal medicine 06/2011; 171(11):1042-3; author reply 1043. · 11.46 Impact Factor
-
Open Medicine 01/2011; 5(1):e33-4.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The integration of the Common Drug Review (CDR) was a substantial change for Canada's public drug plans. Detailed comparisons of time-to-listing and proportion of medications covered by the province of Alberta's drug plans within the context of the CDR process have not been rigorously conducted.
New drugs approved by Health Canada were identified five years prior to the CDR's first recommendation (May 2004) and five years after. The time-to-listing and proportion of new drugs covered on the Alberta Health and Wellness Drug Benefit List (AHWDBL) was compared between these periods. The level of agreement between CDR recommendations and coverage in Alberta was calculated using a kappa score.
Two hundred and twenty new drugs were identified and met the study eligibility criteria (118 pre-CDR, 102 post-CDR). The median time-to-listing was 312 vs. 524 days in the pre-CDR and post-CDR periods, respectively, with the difference largely driven by time from notice of compliance (NOC) to the CDR recommendation. The level of agreement between 73 drugs with CDR recommendations and coverage in Alberta was fair (kappa 0.55).
Following the implementation of the CDR, the proportion of drugs covered has decreased and overall median time-to-listing of new drugs has increased in the province of Alberta. For drugs listed on the AHWDBL, the proportion of time attributable to the CDR process (NOC to CDR recommendation) was 63% of the overall time-to-listing.
Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante 11/2010; 6(2):e117-44.
