Evidence-Based Quality Scores for Rating Drug Products and Their Utility in Health Systems
Dabestani, A.; Bazil, C. W.; Costantino, R. C.; Fox, E.; Graedon, J.; Lever, H.; Makuch, R.; White, C. M.
Show abstract
The quality of drug products in the United States, which are largely produced overseas, has been a matter of growing concern.1 Buyers and payers of pharmaceuticals, whether they are health-systems, insurers, PBMs, pharmacies, physicians, or patients, have little to no visibility into any quality metrics for the manufacturers of drug products or the products themselves. A system of "quality scores" is proposed to enable health-systems and other purchasers and payers of medication to differentiate among drug products according to evidence-based metrics. Metrics influencing the quality scores described herein include both broadly applicable regulatory information and more drug-specific, third-party chemical analysis information. The aggregation of these metrics through a proposed set of rules results in numerical values on a 0-100 scale that may be further simplified into a red/yellow/green designation. The simplicity of such scores enables seamless integration into existing healthcare systems and an integration scheme is proposed. Using real-world data from currently on-market valsartan drug products, this proposed system generated a variety of quality scores for six major manufacturers. These scores were further evaluated according to their current market price showing no significant correlation between quality score and price. The implementation of drug quality scores at healthcare institutions in the United States and their potential utilization by regulators, could create a much-needed, market-driven incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce quality medications that would reduce drug shortages and improve public health.
Matching journals
The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) as Novel Sources for Population-Based Post Marketing Surveillance of Medical Products: A Pilot Study from the FDA Sentinel Innovation Center 93%
- Standardization of drug names in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System: The DiAna dictionary 93%
- Large-scale empirical identification of candidate comparators for pharmacoepidemiological studies 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Extent and causes of the collapse in the registration of innovative medications in Lebanon: A mixed-methods analysis 92%
- Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol 90%
- An interactive retrieval system for clinical trial studies with context-dependent protocol elements 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Budget Impact Analysis Of The Introduction Of Ranibizumabs Biosimilar To The Jordanian Joint Procurement System. 90%
- AI-Driven Early Detection of Severe Influenza in Jiangsu, China: A Deep Learning Model Validated Through The Design of Multi-Center Clinical Trials and Prospective Real-World Deployment 89%
- Staffing and Capacity Planning for SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Infusion Facilities: A Performance Estimation Calculator based on Discrete-Event Simulations 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of CancelRx on Discontinuation of Controlled Substance Prescriptions 92%
- An Interpretable Risk Prediction Model for Healthcare with Pattern Attention 90%
- An Ontology-based Approach to Guide and Document Variable and Data Source Selection and Data Integration Process to Support Integrative Data Analysis in Cancer Outcomes Research 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 91%
- Data management in substance use disorder treatment research: Implications from data harmonization of National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded randomized controlled trials 88%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.