Skip to main content
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2010

01.10.2010 | Industry Perspectives

Comparative Effectiveness Research

The View from a Pharmaceutical Company

verfasst von: Dr Marc L. Berger, David Grainger

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 10/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) represents the next stage in an evolution of research and knowledge development in regard to medical interventions. In this article we describe the challenges currently facing the innovative pharmaceuticals industry and briefly summarize the history of drug development, as context for the current movement to comparative effectiveness. CER should be considered alongside the wider field of health technology assessment (HTA), and we review the status of both CER and HTA internationally and their role in health policy. Limitations as to what can be achieved with HTA and limitations to the availability of evidence of comparative effectiveness at the time of market authorization provide ongoing challenges to all stakeholders. However, embracing CER is regarded as an essential step for the innovative pharmaceutical industry, as companies strive to more clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of their pipeline products with evidence that is compelling to payers and HTA agencies. Examples are given of how these evolving requirements from regulatory and HTA agencies are impacting on drug development efforts and how one company is responding. Finally, there are signs of increasing understanding and alignment across the various partners in drug development, registration and evaluation, and further suggestions are provided for consideration as the field matures and expands.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Woosley RL, Cossman J. Drug development and the FDA’s critical path initiative. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 Jan; 81 (1): 129–33PubMedCrossRef Woosley RL, Cossman J. Drug development and the FDA’s critical path initiative. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 Jan; 81 (1): 129–33PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010 March; 9: 203–14PubMed Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010 March; 9: 203–14PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
6.
Zurück zum Zitat CochraneAL. Effectiveness and efficiency: randomreflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972 CochraneAL. Effectiveness and efficiency: randomreflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Shi L, Hodges M, Drummond M, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: an international perspective. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report: part VI. Value Health. Epub 2009 Oct 26 Shi L, Hodges M, Drummond M, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: an international perspective. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report: part VI. Value Health. Epub 2009 Oct 26
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Section 6301(a) of the Healthcare Reform Law, adding section 1181(d)(8)(iv) of Title XI of the Social Security Act Section 6301(a) of the Healthcare Reform Law, adding section 1181(d)(8)(iv) of Title XI of the Social Security Act
12.
Zurück zum Zitat The Institute of Medicine, Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Board on Health Care Services. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009 Jun 30 [online]. Available from URL: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12648 [Accessed 2010 Jan 20] The Institute of Medicine, Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Board on Health Care Services. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009 Jun 30 [online]. Available from URL: http://​books.​nap.​edu/​openbook.​php?​record_​id=​12648 [Accessed 2010 Jan 20]
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Garber AM, Hlatky MA. The confirmatory trial in comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (15): 1498–9PubMedCrossRef Garber AM, Hlatky MA. The confirmatory trial in comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (15): 1498–9PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Joönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (3): 244–58; discussion pp362-8PubMed Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Joönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (3): 244–58; discussion pp362-8PubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press, 2002CrossRef Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press, 2002CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (2): 113–42PubMedCrossRef Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (2): 113–42PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, et al. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. Epub 2010 Mar 10 Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, et al. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. Epub 2010 Mar 10
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Nicholas Timmins. The NICE way of influencing health spending: a conversation with Sir Michael Rawlins. Interview by Nicholas Timmins. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28 (5): 1360–5 Nicholas Timmins. The NICE way of influencing health spending: a conversation with Sir Michael Rawlins. Interview by Nicholas Timmins. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28 (5): 1360–5
22.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR, Garber AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA 2007; 298 (11): 1323–5PubMedCrossRef Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR, Garber AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA 2007; 298 (11): 1323–5PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting non-randomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources. The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report: part I. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1044–52 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/taskforces/retrospectivedbpractices.asp [Accessed 2010 Jun 22] Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting non-randomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources. The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report: part I. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1044–52 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​ispor.​org/​taskforces/​retrospectivedbp​ractices.​asp [Accessed 2010 Jun 22]
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources. The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report: part II. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1053–61 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/RetrospectiveDBPractices2.asp [Accessed 2010 Jun 22] Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources. The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report: part II. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1053–61 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​ispor.​org/​TaskForces/​RetrospectiveDBP​ractices2.​asp [Accessed 2010 Jun 22]
Metadaten
Titel
Comparative Effectiveness Research
The View from a Pharmaceutical Company
verfasst von
Dr Marc L. Berger
David Grainger
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2010
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 10/2010
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11535400-000000000-00000

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2010

PharmacoEconomics 10/2010 Zur Ausgabe