Can the pharmaceutical industry embrace comparative effectiveness research? A view from inside

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 565-568

  Berger, Marc L ^a  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DRUG COST; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT CARE; REIMBURSEMENT; RELIABILITY; REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS;

EID: 84886388998     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2013.833061     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Berger ML, Grainger D. Comparative effectiveness research: the view from a pharmaceutical company. Pharmacoeconomics 28(10), 915-922 (2010).
2. Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness and the future of clinical research in diabetes. Diabetes Care 36, 2146-2147 (2013).
3. Mansley EC, Elbasha EH, Teutsch SM, Berger ML. The decision to conduct a head-to-head comparative trial: a game theoretic analysis. Med. Decis. Making 27(4), 364-379 (2007).
4. Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1), 128-132 (2005).
5. Goldberg NH, Schneeweiss S, Kowal MK, Gagne JJ. Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the united states. JAMA 305, 1786-1789 (2011).
6. Wang A, Halbert RJ, Baerwaldt T, Nordyke RJ. US payer perspectives on evidence for formulary decision making. J. Oncol. Pract. 8, 22s-27s (2012).
7. Teutsch SM, Berger ML. Evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision making: related, but distinct processes (editorial). Med. Decis. Making 25(5), 487-489 (2005).
8. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. 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 12(8), 1044-1052 (2009).
9. Dreyer N, Schneeweiss S, McNeil B et al. GRACE principles: recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Am. J. Manag. Care 16(6), 467-471 (2010).
10. Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, Towse A, Sedrakyan A, Normand SL. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good practices task force report. Value Health 15, 217-230 (2012).
11. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U et al. Modeling good research practices-overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health 15, 796-803 (2012).
12. Neumann P. Communicating and promoting comparative-effectiveness research findings. NEJM 369, 209-211 (2013).
13. Berger ML. Accelerating the development of comparative effectiveness information: does Phase IIIb represent an opportunity? ISPOR Connect. 18(5), 5-6 (2012).
14. Timble J, Fox S, Van Busum K, Schneider E. Five reasons that many comparative effectiveness studies fail to change patient care and clinical practice. Health Aff. 31, 2168-2175 (2012).