Search

Objective: To retrospectively analyse the key factors associated with listing decisions by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for medicines for diabetes and its complications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Methods: The clinical and economic evidence were retrieved from public summary documents (PSD) of all major submissions between July 2005 and March 2020. A multivariate binary logit regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between the categorical explanatory variables and PBAC recommendations. Results: We identified a total of 211 PSD of which 118 (56%) were recommended for listing. Clinical and economic uncertainty were significantly and inversely associated with the PBAC recommendation. Submissions with high clinical and economic uncertainty were less likely to be recommended. Conclusion: Our findings will enhance the understanding of medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders about the rationale of PBAC reimbursement decisions for these medicines and assist prospective applicant sponsor companies in preparing their submissions. What is known about the topic? Most studies on Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions focused mainly on the cost-effectiveness, while some assessed only the financial impact of medicines. A few PBAC studies analysed the reimbursement decisions for medicines targeting specific disease groups, e.g. oncology, orphan disease, and multiple sclerosis. What does this paper add? This study presents an in-depth retrospective analysis of the PBAC decisions for listing medicines related to diabetes and its complications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and contributes to the existing evidence-based knowledge of health technology assessment. What are the implications for practitioners? Our findings will enhance the understanding of medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders about the rationale of PBAC reimbursement decisions for these medicines and assist prospective applicant sponsor companies in preparing their submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal operations for clinical outcomes, safety and cost. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed of 213 elective colorectal operations (59 robotic, 154 laparoscopic), matched by surgeon and operation type. Results: No differences in age, body mass index, median American Society of Anesthesiologists score or presence of cancer were observed between the laparoscopic or robotic surgery groups. However, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery were more frequently male (P = 0.004) with earlier T stage tumours (P = 0.02) if cancer present. Procedures took longer in cases of robotic surgery (302 vs 130 min; P < 0.001), and patients in this group were more frequently admitted to intensive care units (P < 0.001). Overall length of stay was longer (7 vs 5 days; P = 0.03) and consumable cost was A$2728 higher per patient in the robotic surgery group. Conclusion: Robotic colorectal surgery appears to be safe compared with current laparoscopic techniques, albeit with longer procedure times and overall length of stay, more frequent intensive care admissions and higher consumables cost. What is known about the topic?: Robotic surgery is an emerging alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches in colorectal surgery. International trials suggest the two techniques are equivalent in safety. What does this paper add?: This is an original cohort study examining clinical outcomes in Australian colorectal robotic surgery. The data suggest it may be safe, but this paper demonstrates key issues in the implementation and audit of novel surgical technologies in relatively low-volume centres. What are implications for practitioners?: In our study, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery at a single centre in Australia had equivalent measured clinical outcomes to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, practitioners may counsel patients that robotic procedures are typically longer and more expensive, with a longer overall hospital admission and a higher likelihood of intensive care admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. This study examined postgraduate work after an undergraduate clinical year spent in the Rural Clinical School of Western Australia (RCSWA), compared with 6 weeks Rural Undergraduate Support and Coordination (RUSC)-funded rural experience in a 6-year undergraduate medical course. Rural background, sex and Rural Australian Medical Undergraduate Scholarship (RAMUS)-holding were taken into account. Methods. University of Western Australia undergraduate data were linked by hand with postgraduate placements to provide a comprehensive dataset on the rural exposure history of junior medical practitioners working in Western Australia between 2004 and 2007. Results. Participation in the RCSWA program was associated with significantly more postgraduate year one rural work than RUSC placement alone (OR=1.5, CI 0.97-2.38). The RCSWA workforce effect increased at postgraduate year two (OR=3.0, CI 1.6484 to 5.5935 relative to RUSC). Rural-origin practitioners who chose the RCSWA program were more likely than other rural-origin practitioners to take rural rotations in both postgraduate years. RAMUS holders' choice in relation to the RCSWA program predicted later rural work. There were no effects of sex. Conclusions. Rural initiatives, in particular the Rural Clinical School program, are associated with postgraduate rural choices. The real impact of these data rely on the translation of early postgraduate choices into long-term work commitments. What is known about the topic? Specific training of rural graduates is strongly related to subsequent rural workforce. In addition, rural educational placements affect medical students' intentions to practise rurally. Retrospective data from rural relative to urban general practitioners link rural background, rural undergraduate experience and rural postgraduate experience with rural work. What does this paper add? Much of the Australian prospective outcomes research has looked at workforce intentions of graduates, or the workforce outcomes of small graduate cohorts of Rural Clinical Schools. This paper followed nearly 500 graduates by name through to their PGY1 and PGY2 workforce decisions. As this cohort comprised 80% of three completely graduated MBBS years, these data validly represent the outcome of a medical school which is comparable to all Australian medical schools in its RUSC, Rural Clinical School and RAMUS recipients. The paper provides the first peer-reviewed outcomes data for the RAMUS scholarship program. What are the implications for practitioners? Rural supervision of medical students is an effective way to recruit new workforce. The longer students are supervised in rural settings, the better. But undergraduate programs need to be linked with postgraduate initiatives that take graduates of medical student initiatives into vocational programs able to deliver a trained rural workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]