The use of research abstracts in formulary decision making by the joint oncology drug review of Canada
- 39 Downloads
Background and Objective
Opinions on the use of research abstracts in policy decision making are conflicting. We sought to evaluate the influence of research abstracts in guiding decisions of the Joint Oncology Drug Review of Canada (JODR), which conducts clinical and economic reviews of new cancer treatment drugs for formulary listing.
The minutes of the monthly meetings of the JODR between 2005 and 2007 were reviewed. One submission per drug indication was included. Elements evaluated included the level of evidence supporting each decision, the year the study was published and subsequent publication of any abstracts.
There were 73 recommendations reviewed over the 36 months. Ten recommendations were deferred and eight recommendations were resubmissions, thus 55 recommendations underwent analysis. There were 31 recommendations based to some extent on abstracts, of which 14 (45%) were in favour of formulary listing and 17 (55%) were opposed. Twelve recommendations were based exclusively on abstracts, seven (58%) of which were in favour of formulary listing. As a comparison, published randomized controlled trials were part of the evidentiary base in 30 committee recommendations (55%). Of these, 17 (57%) were in favour of formulary listing, while 13 (43%) were opposed.
Research abstracts are commonly involved in evidence-based decision making for formulary listing. The rates of approving cancer drugs for funding by the JODR were similar among recommendations based on abstracts and other levels of evidence. Abstracts can play an important role in guiding decision making.
KeywordsFormulary Inclusion Research Abstract Data Extraction Form Formulary Listing Meeting Minute
The authors wish to thank all past and present members of the JODR and the associated Ministry of Health staff for their help in this study.
Dr Bell is a JODR member, supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute chair in Patient Safety and Continuity of Care. The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. The corresponding author had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
- 8.Pater JL, Browman GP, Brouwers MC, et al. Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: closing the loop in the practice guidelines development cycle. J Clin Onc 2001 Jul 15; 19(14): 3392–6Google Scholar