Comparative effectiveness research: The view from a pharmaceutical company

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 915-922

  Berger, Marc L ^a   Grainger, David ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

benefit risk assessment; decision making; formularies; research and development; treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE COST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 77956534338     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11535400-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Woosley RL, Cossman J. Drug development and the FDA's critical path initiative. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 Jan; 81 (1): 129-133
2. Eli Lilly and Company 2008 annual report. Indianapolis (IN): Eli Lilly and Co., 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://files.shareholder.com/ downloads/LLY/507044227x 0x296463/611E167A-61C9-4C03-8866-ACF5FA7C8953/English. PDF [Accessed 2009 Oct 20]
3. 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: 203-214
4. Rockoff JD. Lilly taps contractors to revive pipeline. Wall Street J 2010 Jan 5 [online]. Available from URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB1000142405274870424750457460 4503922019082.html [Accessed 2010 Jun 22] Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
5. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972
6. Goldstein J. More is less: lessons from a life in health research. Wall Street J Health Blog [online]. Available from URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/ 2007/07/05/more-is-less-lessons-from-a-life-in-health-research [Accessed 2010 Jun 22]
7. Shi L, Hodges M, Drummond M, et al. Good research prac-tices 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
8. Section 6301(a) of the Healthcare Reform Law, adding sec-tion 1181(d)(8)(iv) of Title XI of the Social Security Act
9. Kirschner N. American College of Physicians. Improved availability of comparative effectiveness information: an essential feature for a high-quality and efficient United States health care system [position paper]. Philadelphia (PA): The American College of Physicians, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where-we-stand/policy/healthcare-system.pdf [Accessed 2009 Oct 19]
10. Wilensky GR. The policies and politics of creating a com-parative clinical effectiveness research center. Health Aff 2009 Jun; 28 (4): w719-29 [online]. Available from URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/ abstract/28/4/w719 [Accessed 2010 Jun 22]
11. The Institute of Medicine, Committee on Comparative Ef-fectiveness 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]
12. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7023/71 [Accessed 2009 Oct 20]
13. Garber AM, Hlatky MA. The confirmatory trial in com-parative- effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (15): 1498-1499
14. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key princi-ples for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (3): 244-58; discussion 362-368
15. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press, 2002
16. European Medicines Agency and EUnetHTA Joint Action start collaboration on European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) contribution to relative effectiveness assessments [press release]. 2010 Feb 16 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/general/direct/pr/9843110en. pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 25]
17. Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D. Funding the unfund-able: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (2): 113-142
18. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, et al. Linking pay-ment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. Epub 2010 Mar 10
19. 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): 1360-1365
20. Lilly reports on outcome of phase III study of Arzoxifene [media release]. 2009 Aug 18 [online]. Available from URL: http://newsroom.lilly.com/ releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID= 403905 [Accessed 2009 Oct 20]
21. Allison M. Is personalized medicine finally arriving? Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26 (5): 509-517
22. Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR, Garber AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA 2007; 298 (11): 1323-1325
23. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized 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): 1044-1052 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/task forces/retrospectivedbpractices.asp [Accessed 2010 Jun 22]
24. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. Good research prac-tices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of non-randomized 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]