The effect of comparative effectiveness research on drug development innovation: a 360° value appraisal

The drug development process is in dire need of transformation. Even after achieving regulatory approval, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly seeing their products subjected to health technology assessments (HTAs) by public and private payers. The cornerstone of HTA value appraisal, and thus reimbursability, is comparative effectiveness research (CER), a 'real-world' comparison of a new product with the existing standard of care. Burgeoning demand for CER will fundamentally transform drug development by forcing biopharmaceutical manufacturers to view drug innovation from a holistic, 360° perspective. Specifically, drug and device developers must alter their existing approach to RD demonstrating real-world value through a suite of post-market observational research methods; and creating a transparent CER evaluation protocol based on standard principles. In the long-term, CER is forecast to propel innovation by focusing R&D on products that deliver real-world value to multiple customers

[1]  Barry R Davis,et al.  Impact of the ALLHAT/JNC7 Dissemination Project on thiazide-type diuretic use. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[2]  K. Carman,et al.  Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. , 2010, Health affairs.

[3]  N. McElwee,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research: critically intertwined with health care reform and the future of biomedical innovation. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[4]  Андрей Павлович Порван,et al.  Information system definition of adaptation opportunities of the students organism , 2013 .

[5]  S. Greenfield,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Report From the Institute of Medicine , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  P. Bach,et al.  How Medicare could use comparative effectiveness research in deciding on new coverage and reimbursement. , 2010, Health affairs.

[7]  A. Siderowf Evidence from clinical trials: Can we do better? , 2004, NeuroRX.

[8]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Milton C Weinstein,et al.  Comparative effectiveness and health care spending--implications for reform. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  J. Overhage,et al.  Advancing the Science for Active Surveillance: Rationale and Design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  H L Greene,et al.  The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial: first CAST ... then CAST-II. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  C. Clancy,et al.  Charting a path from comparative effectiveness funding to improved patient-centered health care. , 2010, JAMA.