New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 361, Issue 13, 2009, Pages 1230-1233

  Stafford, Randall S ^a   Wagner, Todd H ^a,b   Lavori, Philip W ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE COST; MARKETING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG LABELING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 70349472886     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp0906490     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Sisko A, Truffer C, Smith S, et al. Health spending projections through 2018: recession effects add uncertainty to the outlook. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:w346-w357.
2. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: E 10 choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.
3. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2009;373:746-758
4. Hamburg MA, Sharfstein JM. The FDA as a public health agency. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2493-2495
5. USP Model Guidelines Expert Committee. Narrative review: the U.S. Pharmacopeia and model guidelines for Medicare Part D formularies. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:448-453