No abstract

BackgroundPrevious analyses of the listings of trastuzumab on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and HPV vaccine on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) suggest a media influence on policy makers. We examined the timing and content of Australian newspaper reports of medicines in relation to Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions.MethodsWe identified newspaper reports (2005-2008) of medicines recommended for PBS listing in 2006–2007, analysing the content for mentions of the medicine, PBS and medicine costs to the patient and the government and counting the numbers of articles published in the six months before, the month of, and the six months after the relevant PBAC meeting. Case studies examined reporting for infliximab for Crohn’s Disease, pemetrexed for mesothelioma, and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) medicines atomoxetine and methylphenidate.ResultsOf 79 eligible medicines, 62 had news reports. Most often reported were HPV vaccine (1230 stories), trastuzumab (410), pemetrexed (83), botulinum toxin (71), lapatinib (65), methylphenidate (57), atomoxetine (54), infliximab (49), rotavirus vaccine (45). Eighteen medicines had ≥20 news reports (total 2350 stories); nine of these cost more than AU$10,000 per course or year of treatment. For these 18 medicines, 31% of stories appeared in the six months prior to the PBAC meeting, 14% in the meeting month and 33% in the six months post-meeting. 38% of the stories had ≥3 medicine mentions, 37% referred to the PBS, 24% to cost to the patient, and 9% cost to Government.There was active patient lobby group campaigning in support of listing of infliximab and pemetrexed; the stories for ADHD were often more negative, referring to the dangers of the medicines and sometimes questioning the appropriateness of treatment and public subsidy. There was little discussion of the PBAC’s evidence-based decision-making processes.ConclusionsWhile there was no general trend to increased news reporting associated with PBAC meetings, some drugs did attract media attention. With more new and expensive drugs, decisions on public funding will become increasingly difficult. The media have an important role in enhancing public understanding of the issues around resource allocation. Specialist journalists, guidelines and checklists may help reporting.

Objectives To identify factors influencing Australian consumer decision‐making and attitudes towards non‐prescription medicine (NPM) purchases, pharmacy's role in providing these medications and views around sources of evidence for effectiveness of these products. Methods Cross‐sectional survey of a general population sample of 1731 adults using an Australian online consumer panel stratified by gender, age and location (State/Territory). Beliefs about NPM purchases and evidence of their efficacy were assessed using a 5‐point Likert scale (strongly disagree‐strongly agree). Non‐parametric measures (Ridit analysis and Mann–Whitney U‐test) were used to explore associations between responses and previous experience with medicines. Key findings The most important factors when purchasing NPMs were effectiveness and safety. However, personal experience was the most common method of determining effectiveness. Most respondents believed buying NPMs in pharmacies gave access to advice, but were less likely to agree that pharmacies were associated with safe and effective treatments. Around half the respondents agreed that it is wrong to sell treatments lacking scientific evidence; many also agreed that it is up to consumers to decide what they want even without scientific evidence. Individuals experiencing an ineffective NPM were less likely to trust scientific evidence of efficacy as the sole source of effectiveness information; regular prescription medicine users often agreed that scientific evidence is needed to support effectiveness. Conclusions Consumers have conflicting views regarding the need for scientific evidence and the desire for patient autonomy in NPM purchases. This presents a challenge for pharmacists wishing to maintain professional obligations to provide evidence‐based treatments to consumers.

IntroductionDisease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are the mainstay of treatment for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). There is established evidence that DMTs are effective at reducing relapse rate and disease progression in RRMS, but there has been less consideration to the synthesis of MRI and neurocognitive outcomes, which play an increasingly important role in treatment decisions. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to examine the relative efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of DMTs for RRMS, using MRI and neurocognitive outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with no date restrictions. We will also search the websites of international regulatory bodies for pharmaceuticals and international trial registries. We will include parallel group randomised controlled trials of DMTs including interferon beta-1a intramuscular, interferon beta-1a subcutaneous, interferon beta-1b, peginterferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, fingolimod, cladribine, ozanimod, mitoxantrone and rituximab, either head-to-head or against placebo in adults with RRMS. Primary outcomes include efficacy (MRI outcomes including new T1/hypointense lesions and T2/hyperintense lesions) and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). Secondary outcomes include gadolinium-enhancing lesions, cerebral atrophy and tolerability (dropouts due to adverse events). Neurocognitive measures across three domains including processing speed, working memory and verbal learning will be included as exploratory outcomes. Data will be analysed using a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian hierarchical random effects network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the included DMTs. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. The review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews incorporating Network Meta-Analyses statement.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol does not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021239630.