British Medical Journal
07 March 2015 (vol 350, issue 7998)
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/7998
.
Editorials
The evidence base for new drugs
BMJ 2015; 350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h952 (Published 02 March 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h952
Peter Doshi, associate editor1,
Tom Jefferson, reviewer2
Author affiliations
New legislation in Germany provides another piece of a complex puzzle
Marketing campaigns cast new drugs as “must haves.” In reality, the public evidence base for new drugs often leaves more questions than answers.1 2 While marketing authorization indicates that regulators judged the risk-benefit profile to be favorable, product labels rarely list and quantify these benefits and harms. Publications of premarketing trials might fill in some gaps, but readers beware: not all trials are published and those that are may be inaccurately or incompletely reported.3 4
Data transparency in clinical trials has emerged as a way to tackle the reporting biases that affect literature, enabling independent scrutiny of trials.5 But it is not enough. Even with open data we rarely know how new drugs compare with existing options or whether they improve patient centered outcomes. An analysis published in this issue (doi:10.1136/bmj.h796) suggests that new legislation in Germany may provide another piece of the puzzle.6
The German act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG) was introduced in 2011 to inform drug pricing for all new drugs. To control costs, sponsors must submit a standardized dossier including evidence of the drug’s added benefit over already available drugs. This dossier is then reviewed by scientists, usually at the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), who produce an assessment report.
.
Editorials
Health literacy: towards system level solutions
BMJ 2015; 350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1026 (Published 24 February 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h1026
Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences
Author affiliations
A new World Health Organization toolkit aimed at low and middle income countries could help reduce health inequalities in the rest of the world too
A new resource aimed at low and middle income countries, the World Health Organization has redefined health literacy as “the personal characteristics and social resources needed for individuals and communities to access, understand, appraise and use information and services to make decisions about health.”1
Low health literacy is associated with poor engagement with health services, health knowledge, concordance with prescribed medication, self management of illness, markers of disease progression, overall health status, and survival. It is also associated with high rates of hospital admission and use of emergency care.2 3 4 5 6 7
Low health literacy is more common in low income and minority ethnic groups, immigrants, people without full citizenship, those with fewer years of education, and older people; it is especially common in people who fall into several of these risk groups.8 9 10 11 People with low health literacy may feel ashamed and try to conceal it from professional carers and family members.12 Differences in health literacy explain a substantial proportion of inequity in the uptake and use …
.
Research
The impact of providing rapid diagnostic malaria tests on fever management in the private retail sector in Ghana: a cluster randomized trial
BMJ 2015; 350 :h1019 (Published 04 March 2015)
Open Access
Abstract
Objective
To examine the impact of providing rapid diagnostic tests for malaria on fever management in private drug retail shops where most poor rural people with fever present, with the aim of reducing current massive overdiagnosis and overtreatment of malaria.
Design
Cluster randomized trial of 24 clusters of shops.
Setting
Dangme West, a poor rural district of Ghana.
Participants
Shops and their clients, both adults and children.
Interventions
Providing rapid diagnostic tests with realistic training.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome was the proportion of clients testing negative for malaria by a double-read research blood slide who received an artemisinin combination therapy or other antimalarial. Secondary outcomes were use of antibiotics and antipyretics, and safety.
Results Of 4603 clients, 3424 (74.4%) tested negative by double-read research slides. The proportion of slide-negative clients who received any antimalarial was 590/1854 (32%) in the intervention arm and 1378/1570 (88%) in the control arm (adjusted risk ratio 0.41 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.58), P<0.0001). Treatment was in high agreement with rapid diagnostic test result. Of those who were slide-positive, 690/787 (87.8%) in the intervention arm and 347/392 (88.5%) in the control arm received an artemisinin combination therapy (adjusted risk ratio 0.96 (0.84 to 1.09)). There was no evidence of antibiotics being substituted for antimalarials. Overall, 1954/2641 (74%) clients in the intervention arm and 539/1962 (27%) in the control arm received appropriate treatment (adjusted risk ratio 2.39 (1.69 to 3.39), P<0.0001). No safety concerns were identified.
Conclusions
Most patients with fever in Africa present to the private sector. In this trial, providing rapid diagnostic tests for malaria in the private drug retail sector significantly reduced dispensing of antimalarials to patients without malaria, did not reduce prescribing of antimalarials to true malaria cases, and appeared safe. Rapid diagnostic tests should be considered for the informal private drug retail sector.
Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01907672
.
Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports
BMJ 2015; 350 :h796 (Published 26 February 2015)
Open Access
Abstract
Background
When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug’s added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The “dossier assessment” is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics (“approved subpopulations”).
Objective
To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources—that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations.
Design
Retrospective analysis.
Data sources
All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers.
Data analysis
We assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as “completely reported” or “incompletely reported (including items not reported at all).” For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.
Results
15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of total study populations, the AMNOG documents reached the highest grade of completeness, with about 90% of methods and results items completely reported. In non-AMNOG documents, the rate was 75% for methods and 52% for results items; journal publications achieved the best rates, followed by European public assessment reports and registry reports. The analysis of approved subpopulations showed poorer complete reporting of results items, particularly in non-AMNOG documents (non-AMNOG versus AMNOG: 11% v 71% for overall results items and 5% v 70% for patient relevant outcomes). The main limitation of our analysis is the small sample size.
Conclusion
Conventional, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on new drugs, especially on patient relevant outcomes in approved subpopulations. This type of information is largely available in AMNOG documents, albeit only partly in English. The AMNOG approach could be used internationally to develop a comprehensive publication model for clinical studies and thus represents a key open access measure.