MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095012872 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240966

How long do new medicines take to reach Canadian patients after companies file a submission: A cohort study

2020· article· en· W3095012872 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel Lexchin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeMarketing authorizationMedicineAuthorizationProduct (mathematics)Family medicineBusinessMarketingComputer sciencePolitical scienceBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Studies of the delay between when companies file a New Drug Submission (NDS) and when drugs reach Canadian patients typically focus on the time in the regulatory review process and do not analyze the time between when approval is granted and the drug is available for purchase (company decision time). This study looks at the length of the two different time periods. Secondarily, it examines whether there is a difference in these time periods for drugs that received a standard review and those that received an expedited review. METHODS: A list of all New Active Substances approved in Canada between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 was compiled and the dates when the companies applied for a NDS, the dates when the drugs received a market authorization (Notice of Compliance, NOC) and whether the drugs received a standard review or an expedited review were recorded. The date of original marketing comes from Health Canada's Drug Product Database. Times in days were calculated between NDS and NOC (review time), between NOC and the marketing date (company decision time) and between NDS and the marketing date (total time). The company decision time as a percent of the total time was calculated for all drugs. Times were compared between standard and expedited review drugs using a two-tailed t-test. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven drugs were analyzed, 98 had a standard review and 59 had a priority review. Over 18% of the total time was due to company decisions. All three times were significantly lower for expedited review drugs versus standard review drugs as was the percent of total time due to company decision- 14.4% (95% CI 11.0, 17.8) versus 21.2% (95% CI 17.6, 24.8), p = 0.0102 (t-test). CONCLUSIONS: Over 18% of the total time between when companies file for drug approval until the drug is available is due to decisions made by companies. Company decision times are shorter for drugs with expedited approvals compared to drugs with standard approvals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207