Private manufacturers thresholds to invest in comparative effectiveness trials

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 30, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 859-868

  Basu, Anirban ^a,b   Meltzer, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Clinical trial design; Decision making; Health policy; Value of information analysis.

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST CONTROL; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INVESTMENT; KNOWLEDGE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STUDY DESIGN;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; INVESTMENTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84866060594     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11597730-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Meltzer D. Testimony on comparative effectiveness research by the Alliance of Comparative Effectiveness Stakeholders (ACES) to Dr Carolyn M. Clancy, Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Washington, DC; 2009 Apr 3 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. ahrq.gov/about/nac/ aces.htm [Accessed 2012 Jul 3]
2. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2009
3. Claxton K, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. When is evidence sufficient? Health Aff 2005; 24: 93-101 (Pubitemid 40169776)
4. Meltzer D, Basu A, Conti R. The economics of comparative effectiveness studies: societal and private perspectives and their implications for prioritizing public investments in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 843-53
5. Acemoglu D, Linn J. Market size in innovation: theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Q J Econ 2004 Aug; 119 (3): 1049-90 (Pubitemid 39057314)
6. Kremer M, Glennerster R. Strong medicine: creating incentives for pharmaceutical research on neglected diseases. Princeton (NJ): Princeton UP, 2004
7. Garber AM, Jones CI, Romer PM. Insurance and incentives for medical innovation [NBER Working Paper no. 12080]. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2006 Mar
8. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290: 1624-32 (Pubitemid 37430387)
9. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 206-9
10. Berry DA. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006 Jan; 5 (1): 27-36
11. Basu A, Jena A, Philipson T. Impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and healthcare spending. J Health Econ 2011; 30 (4): 695-706
12. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making 2004; 24 (2): 207-27 (Pubitemid 38391940)
13. Basu A, Meltzer D. Quantitative methods for valuing comparative effectiveness information. Biopharmaceutical Report Fall 2010; 17 (2): 2-10
14. US Department of Health and Human Services, US FDA. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medicinal products. 2004 Mar [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Critical PathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262. htm [Accessed 2012 Jul 3]
15. Meltzer DO, Hoomans T, Chung JW, et al. Minimal modeling approaches to value of information analysis for health research. Med Decis Making 2011 Nov-Dec; 31 (6): e1-e22
16. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18 (3): 341-64 (Pubitemid 29242816)
17. Meltzer D. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. J Health Econ 2001; 20 (1): 109-29
18. Morris J. The value of information on investment decisions [Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Paper no. 6-72]. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://finance. wharton.upenn.edu/~rlwctr/papers/7206.PDF [Accessed 2012 Jul 3]