Building comparative efficacy and tolerability into the FDA approval process

JAMA

Volumn 303, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 979-980

  O'Connor, Alec B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG LABELING; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PACKAGING; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL SECURITY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAFETY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DEVICE APPROVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; PRODUCT LABELING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 77949323966     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.257     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. US Food and Drug Administration. About FDA: what we do. http://www.fda .gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/default.htm. Accessed February 2, 2010.
2. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009;302(24): 2679-2685.
3. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, part 314-Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug: subpart D-FDA action on applications and abbreviated applications. Section 314.125-Refusal to approve an application. http: //www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=314 .125. Accessed February 2, 2010.
4. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, part 860-Medical device classification procedures: subpart A-general. Section 860.7-Determination of safety and effectiveness. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/ cfcfr/CFRSearch .cfm?fr=860.7. Accessed February 2, 2010.
5. Selker HP, Wood AJJ. Industry influence on comparative-effectiveness research funded through health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(27):2595-2597.
6. Alexander GC, Stafford RS. Does comparative effectiveness have a comparative edge? JAMA. 2009;301(23):2488-2490.
7. Stafford RS, Wagner TH, Lavori PW. New, but not improved? incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(13):1230-1233.
8. Safer DJ. Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(9):583-592.
9. European Medicines Agency. EU standard of medicinal product registration: clinical evaluation of risk/benefit-the role of comparator studies. http://www .emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/press/pos/11931904en.pdf. Posted October 2004. Accessed February 2, 2010.