Futurescapes: Evidence expectations in the USA for comparative effectiveness research for drugs in 2020

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 385-400

  Messner, Donna A ^a   Mohr, Penny ^b   Towse, Adrian ^c  

^a Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

^b Outcomes Research Institute   (United States)

^c OFFICE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; data mining; database networks; drug development; electronic health records; future scenarios; healthcare costs; healthcare integration; healthcare reform; patient activism; patient centered outcomes research; research partnerships; risk sharing

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DRUG RESEARCH; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL SERVICE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; UNITED STATES; DELPHI STUDY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMICS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; INTERVIEW; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROCEDURES; TRENDS;

PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; DRUG DISCOVERY; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84939424584     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer.15.6     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. National Research Council. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required For Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2011).
2. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290, 1624-1632 (2003).
3. Giffin RB, Woodcock J. Comparative effectiveness research: who will do the studies? Health Aff. 29(11), 2075-2081 (2010).
4. Brookings Institute. Implementing Comparative Effectiveness Research: Priorities, Methods, and Impact. Brookings Institute, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, Washington, DC, USA (2009).
5. Doyle JJ. The effect of comparative effectiveness research on drug development innovation: a 360 value appraisal. Comp. Eff. Res. (Auckl). 2011(1), 27-34 (2011).
6. Ali R, Hanger M, Carino T. Comparative effectiveness research in the United States: a catalyst for innovation. Am. Health Drug Ben. 4(2), 68-72 (2011).
7. Basu A, Meltzer D. Private manufacturers' thresholds to invest in comparative effectiveness trials. Pharmacoeconomics 30(10), 859-868 (2012).
8. Dubois RW. Looking at CER from the pharmaceutical industry perspective. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 18, S9-S12 (2012).
9. Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Ruhl M & Rassen JA. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 90(6), 777-790 (2011).
10. Chalkidou K. The (possible) impact of comparative effectiveness research on pharmaceutical industry decision making. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 87, 264-266 (2010).
11. Woodcock J. Comparative effectiveness research and the regulation of drugs, biologics and devices. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2, 95-97 (2013).
12. Temple R. A regulator's view of comparative effectiveness research. Clin. Trials 9, 56-65 (2012).
13. Doyle JJ. Rewarding innovation and value: what is the role of comparative effectiveness research? Quintiles (2010). www. quintiles. com
14. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg KH, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user's guide. Futures 38, 723-739 (2006).
15. Adler M, Ziglio E. Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its Application To Social Policy and Public Health. Jessica Kingsly Publishing, London and Bristol, PA (1996).
16. Kosow H, Gaßner R. Methods Of Future and Scenario Analysis: Overview Assessment and Selection Criteria. German Development Institute, Bonn (2008).
17. Bryman A. Social Research Methods (4th Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York (2012).
18. Ogilvy J, Schwartz P. Plotting your scenarios. Global Business Network (1998). www. gbn. com
19. Fitch K, Berstein, SJ, Aguilar MD et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA (2001).
20. Delbanco SF, Anderson KM, Major CE, Kiser MB, Toner BW. Promising payment report: risk-sharing with accountable care organizations. The Commonwealth Fund. (2011). www. commonwealthfund. org
21. American Academy of Actuaries. Issue brief: an actuarial perspective of accountable care organizations. www. actuary. org
22. Blendon RJ, Brodie M, Benson JM et al. Understanding the managed care backlash. Health Aff. 17(4), 80-94 (1998).
23. Frakt AB, Mayes R. Beyond capitation: How new payment experiments seek to find the 'sweet spot' in amount of risk providers and payers bear. Health Aff. 31(9), 1951-1958 (2012).
24. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Paying physicians by capitation: Is the past now prologue? Health Aff. 29(9), 1661-1666 (2010).
25. Burns LR, Pauly MV. Accountable care organizations may have difficulty avoiding the failures of integrated delivery networks of the 1990s. Health Aff. 31(11), 2407-2416 (2012).
26. Platt R, Carnahan RM, Brown JS et al. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program: status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 21(Suppl. 1), S1-S8 (2012).
27. NIH common fund health care system collaboratory. https://commonfund. nih. gov
28. Kauffman Task Force on Cost-effective Health Care Innovation. Valuing health care: improving productivity and quality. Kauffman (2012). www. kauffman. org
29. McKinsey Global Institute. Big Data: The Next Frontier For Innovation, Competition, And Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute (2011). www. mckinsey. com
30. National Research Council. Best Care At Lower Cost: The Path To Continuously Learning Health Care In America. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2013).
31. Kass N, Faden R, Tunis S. Addressing low-risk comparative effectiveness research in proposed changes to US federal regulations governing research. JAMA 307, 1589-1590 (2012).
32. Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis SR, Beauchamp TL. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43(s1), S4-S15 (2013).
33. Buchanan LR. Letter from OHRP to University of Alabama. (2013). www. hhs. gov
34. Tavernise S. Study of babies did not disclose risks, US finds. New York Times. www. nytimes. com
35. Carome MA. The Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT). Public Citizen's Health Research Group. www. citizen. org
36. Office of Human Research Protection, Department of Health and Human Services (OHRP). Draft guidance on disclosing reasonably foreseeable risks in research evaluating standards of care. www. hhs. gov
37. Messner DA, Tunis SR. Current and future state of FDACMS parallel reviews. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 91, 383-385 (2012).