Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: Methodological challenges and implications for drug development

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 90, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 777-790

  Schneeweiss, S ^a   Gagne, J J ^a   Glynn, R J ^a   Ruhl, M ^b   Rassen, J A ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DRUG MARKETING; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 81355139590     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2011.235     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Schneeweiss, S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 82, 143-156 (2007). (Pubitemid 47075343)
2. Goldberg, N.H., Schneeweiss, S., Kowal, M.K. & Gagne, J.J. Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States. JAMA 305, 1786-1789 (2011).
3. Califf, R.M. et al. An update on the IMProved reduction of outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) design. Am. Heart J. 159, 705-709 (2010).
4. Jackevicius, C.A., Tu, J.V., Ross, J.S., Ko, D.T. & Krumholz, H.M. Use of ezetimibe in the United States and Canada. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 1819-1828 (2008). (Pubitemid 351581194)
5. Sorenson, C. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. Issue Brief (Commonw. Fund) 91, 1-14 (2010).
6. US Food and Drug Administration. MOU 225-10-0010: Memorandum of understanding between US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 〈http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/ partnershipscollaborations/memorandaofunderstandingmous/domesticmous/ucm217585. htm〉 (2010).
7. Cioffe, C. Portfolio selection and management in pharmaceutical research and development: issues and challenges. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 300-303 (2011).
8. Honig, P.K. Comparative effectiveness: the fourth hurdle in drug development and a role for clinical pharmacology. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 151-156 (2011).
9. Velentgas, P.et al. A survey of aspirin use, non-prescription NSAID use, and cigarette smoking among users and non-users of prescription NSAIDs:estimates of the effect of unmeasured counfounding by these factors on studies of NSAID use and risk of myocardial infarction. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 10, S103 (2001).
10. Schneeweiss, S. & Avorn, J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58, 323-337 (2005). (Pubitemid 40601980)
11. Schneeweiss, S., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J. & Solomon, D.H. A Medicare database review found that physician preferences increasingly outweighed patient characteristics as determinants of first-time prescriptions for COX-2 inhibitors. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58, 98-102 (2005). (Pubitemid 40093118)
12. Tan, H. et al. Impact of asthma controller medications on clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes. Mayo Clin. Proc. 84, 675-684 (2009).
13. Segal, J.B., Dy, S.M., Millman, E.A., Herbert, R., Bass, E.B. & Wu, A. Diffusion into use of exenatide for glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a retrospective cohort study of a new therapy. Clin. Ther. 29, 1784-1794 (2007). (Pubitemid 47494552)
14. Schneeweiss, S. et al. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Med. Care 45, S131-S142 (2007).
15. Glynn, R.J., Schneeweiss, S. & Sturmer, T. Propensity scores in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin. Phar. Tox. 98, 252-259 (2006).
16. Cochrane, A. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflection on Health Services (Nuffield Provincial Trust, London, 1972).
17. Concato, J., Shah, N. & Horwitz, R.I. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1887-1892 (2000). (Pubitemid 30419054)
18. Psaty, B.M. & Siscovick, D.S. Minimizing bias due to confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research: the importance of restriction. JAMA 304, 897-898 (2010).
19. Schneeweiss, S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 19, 858-868 (2010).
20. Rubin, D.B. & Thomas, N. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 573-585 (2000).
21. Myers, J. et al. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. Am. J. Epidemiol. (in press).
22. Brookhart, M.A., Wang, P.S., Solomon, D.H. & Schneeweiss, S. Evaluating shortterm drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology 17, 268-275 (2006).
23. Brookhart, M.A. & Schneeweiss, S. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. Int. J. Biostat. 3, 14 (2007).
24. Rassen, J.A., Schneeweiss, S., Glynn, R.J., Mittleman, M.A. & Brookhart, M.A. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. Am. J. Epidemiol. 169, 273-284 (2009).
25. Tamblyn, R., McLeod, P., Hanley, J.A., Girard, N. & Hurley, J. Physician and practice characteristics associated with the early utilization of new prescription drugs. Med. Care 41, 895-908 (2003).
26. Brookhart, M.A., Rassen, J.A., Wang, P.S., Dormuth, C., Mogun, H. & Schneeweiss, S. Evaluating the validity of an instrumental variable study of neuroleptics: can between-physician differences in prescribing patterns be used to estimate treatment effects? Med. Care 45, S116-S122 (2007).
27. Mintzes, B. et al. Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. BMJ 324, 278-279 (2002). (Pubitemid 34121841)
28. Mintzes, B. et al. How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. CMAJ 169, 405-412 (2003). (Pubitemid 37076252)
29. Schneeweiss, S., Patrick, A.R., Maclure, M., Dormuth, C.R. & Glynn, R.J. Adherence to statin therapy under drug cost sharing in patients with and without acute myocardial infarction: a population-based natural experiment. Circulation 115, 2128-2135 (2007). (Pubitemid 46659064)
30. Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T.R. & Feinstein, A.R. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 49, 1373-1379 (1996). (Pubitemid 27028925)
31. Cepeda, M.S., Boston, R., Farrar, J.T. & Strom, B.L. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am. J. Epidemiol. 158, 280-287 (2003). (Pubitemid 36944422)
32. Rubin, D.B. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann. Intern. Med. 127, 757-763 (1997). (Pubitemid 27446562)
33. Rassen, J.A., Glynn, R.J., Rothman, K.J., Setoguchi, S. & Schneeweiss, S. Applying propensity scores estimated in a full cohort to adjust for confounding in subgroup analyses. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (in press).
34. Solomon, D.H., Lunt, M. & Schneeweiss, S. The risk of infection associated with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists: making sense of epidemiologic evidence. Arthritis Rheum. 58, 919-928 (2008). (Pubitemid 351563992)
35. McMahon, A.D., Evans, J.M., McGilchrist, M.M., McDevitt, D.G. & MacDonald, T.M. Drug exposure risk windows and unexposed comparator groups for cohort studies in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 7, 275-280 (1998). (Pubitemid 28396299)
36. Rosenbaum, P.R. Differential effects and generic biases in observational studies. Biometrika 93, 573-586 (2006). (Pubitemid 44599851)
37. Brookhart, M.A., Rassen, J.A. & Schneeweiss, S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 19, 537-554 (2010).
38. Schneeweiss, S., Maclure, M., Soumerai, S.B., Walker, A.M. & Glynn, R.J. Quasiexperimental longitudinal designs to evaluate drug benefit policy changes with low policy compliance. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55, 833-841 (2002).
39. Paterson, J.M., Mamdani, M., Juurlink, D.N., Naglie, G., Laupacis, A. & Stukel, T.A. Clinical consequences of generic warfarin substitution: an ecological study. JAMA 296, 1969-1972 (2006). (Pubitemid 44631442)
40. Hartzema, A.G., Racoosin, J.A., MaCurdy, T.E., Gibbs, J.M. & Kelman, J.A. Utilizing Medicare claims data for real-time drug safety evaluations:is it feasible? Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 20, 684-688 (2011).
41. Hamilton, W., Lancashire, R., Sharp, D., Peters, T.J., Cheng, K.K. & Marshall, T. The importance of anaemia in diagnosing colorectal cancer: a case-control study using electronic primary care records. Br. J. Cancer 98, 323-327 (2008). (Pubitemid 351161252)
42. Mulla, Z.D., Seo, B., Kalamegham, R. & Nuwayhid, B.S. Multiple imputation for missing laboratory data: an example from infectious disease epidemiology. Ann. Epidemiol. 19, 908-914 (2009).
43. Behrman, R.E., Benner, J.S., Brown, J.S., McClellan, M., Woodcock, J. & Platt, R. Developing the Sentinel System-a national resource for evidence development. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 498-499 (2011).
44. Seeger, J.D., Walker, A.M., Williams, P.L., Saperia, G.M. & Sacks, F.M. A propensity score-matched cohort study of the effect of statins, mainly fluvastatin, on the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction. Am. J. Cardiol. 92, 1447-1451 (2003). (Pubitemid 37532570)
45. Seeger, J.D., Kurth, T. & Walker, A.M. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med. Care 45, S143-S148 (2007).
46. Gagne, J.J., Glynn, R.J., Walker, A.M., Glynn, R.J. & Schneeweiss, S. Comparison of alerting algorithms for prospective medical product safety monitoring: a simulation study and empirical application. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 20, S143-S144 (2011).
47. Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J.A., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J., Mogun, H. & Brookhart, M.A. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology 20, 512-522 (2009).
48. Rassen, J.A., Glynn, R.J., Brookhart, M.A. & Schneeweiss, S. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am. J. Epidemiol. 173, 1404-1413 (2011).
49. Mahalanobis, P.C. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India 12, 49-55 (1936).
50. Rassen, J.A., Solomon, D.H., Glynn, R.J. & Schneeweiss, S. Simultaneously assessing intended and unintended treatment effects of multiple treatment options: a pragmatic "matrix design." Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 20, 675-683 (2011).
51. Ray, W.A. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am. J. Epidemiol. 158, 915-920 (2003). (Pubitemid 37323253)
52. Cook, N.R., Hebert, P.R., Manson, J.E., Buring, J.E. & Hennekens, C.H. Selfselected posttrial aspirin use and subsequent cardiovascular disease and mortality in the physicians' health study. Arch. Intern. Med. 160, 921-928 (2000). (Pubitemid 30191919)
53. Ridker, P.M. et al.; JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 2195-2207 (2008).
54. Arber, N. et al.; PreSAP Trial Investigators. Celecoxib for the prevention of colorectal adenomatous polyps. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 885-895 (2006). (Pubitemid 44315981)
55. Solomon, S.D. et al.; APC and PreSAP Trial Investigators. Effect of celecoxib on cardiovascular events and blood pressure in two trials for the prevention of colorectal adenomas. Circulation 114, 1028-1035 (2006). (Pubitemid 44358879)
56. Bombardier, C. et al.; VIGOR Study Group. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 1520-1528, 2 p following 1528 (2000).
57. Cannon, C.P. et al.; Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 1495-1504 (2004). (Pubitemid 38477774)
58. Armitage, J. et al.; Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and Homocysteine (SEARCH) Collaborative Group. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 376, 1658-1669 (2010).
59. White, H.D. et al.; VALIANT Investigators. Mortality and morbidity remain high despite captopril and/or valsartan therapy in elderly patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both after acute myocardial infarction: results from the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT). Circulation 112, 3391-3399 (2005). (Pubitemid 43739553)
60. Tunis, S.R., Stryer, D.B. & Clancy, C.M. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290, 1624-1632 (2003). (Pubitemid 37430387)
61. McCormick, D., Gurwitz, J.H., Lessard, D., Yarzebski, J., Gore, J.M. & Goldberg, R.J. Use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and lipid-lowering medications before recurrent acute myocardial infarction: missed opportunities for prevention? Arch. Intern. Med. 159, 561-567 (1999). (Pubitemid 29133880)
62. Song, F., Loke, Y.K., Walsh, T., Glenny, A.M., Eastwood, A.J. & Altman, D.G. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 338, b1147 (2009).
63. Bucher, H.C., Guyatt, G.H., Griffith, L.E. & Walter, S.D. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50, 683-691 (1997). (Pubitemid 27341818)
64. Loke, Y.K. & Kwok, C.S. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban for prevention of venous thromboembolism-systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 36, 111-124 (2011).
65. Singh, J.A. et al. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview. CMAJ 181, 787-796 (2009).
66. Salliot, C. et al. Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological antirheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or to an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent: a meta-analysis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 70, 266-271 (2011).
67. Breimer, D.D. & Danhof, M. Relevance of the application of pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic modelling concepts in drug development. The "wooden shoe' paradigm. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 32, 259-267 (1997). (Pubitemid 27160610)
68. Danhof, M., Alvan, G., Dahl, S.G., Kuhlmann, J. & Paintaud, G. Mechanismbased pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling-a new classification of biomarkers. Pharm. Res. 22, 1432-1437 (2005). (Pubitemid 41215882)
69. Holford, N., Ma, S.C. & Ploeger, B.A. Clinical trial simulation: a review. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 88, 166-182 (2010).
70. Archimedes. Archimedes: Quantifying Healthcare 〈http:// archimedesmodel. com〉.
71. Eddy, D.M. & Schlessinger, L. Validation of the Archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care 26, 3102-3110 (2003). (Pubitemid 37339505)
72. Peskin, B.R., Shcheprov, A.V., Boye, K.S., Bruce, S., Maggs, D.G. & Gaebler, J.A. Cardiovascular outcomes associated with a new once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist vs. traditional therapies for type 2 diabetes: a simulation analysis. Diabetes. Obes. Metab. 13, 921-927 (2011).
73. Dudl, R.J., Wang, M.C., Wong, M. & Bellows, J. Preventing myocardial infarction and stroke with a simplified bundle of cardioprotective medications. Am. J. Manag. Care 15, e88-e94 (2009).
74. Hlatky, M.A. What we can learn from a decision model: comment on "Costeffectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging to rheumatoid arthritis management." Arch. Intern. Med. 171, 667-668 (2011).