Response to Michael Wonder’s comments on the article ‘Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia’

The two main sources of information we used in our study to inform our assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines were the French independent medical journal Prescrire, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)’s assessments. Both use the best standard of current care as the comparator to estimate the therapeutic value of new medicines.

Wonder comments that we are ‘rather vague’ on what comparisons should be made to determine the therapeutic value of a medicine. The valuation of therapeutic innovation has mainly been addressed by funding agencies such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in Australia that requires evidence for efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of a new medicine against an appropriate comparator. Medicine regulatory agencies such as the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) typically require the demonstration of the efficacy of a medicine against a placebo

The two main sources of information we used in our study to inform our assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines were the French independent medical journal Prescrire, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)’s assessments. Both use the best standard of current care as the comparator to estimate the therapeutic value of new medicines.

Wonder comments that we are ‘rather vague’ on what comparisons should be made to determine the therapeutic value of a medicine. The valuation of therapeutic innovation has mainly been addressed by funding agencies such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in Australia that requires evidence for efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of a new medicine against an appropriate comparator. Medicine regulatory agencies such as the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) typically require the demonstration of the efficacy of a medicine against a placebo