Developments in Post-marketing Comparative Effectiveness Research

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 7.39). 09/2007; 82(2):143-56. DOI: 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100249
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Physicians and insurers need to weigh the effectiveness of new drugs against existing therapeutics in routine care to make decisions about treatment and formularies. Because Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of most new drugs requires demonstrating efficacy and safety against placebo, there is limited interest by manufacturers in conducting such head-to-head trials. Comparative effectiveness research seeks to provide head-to-head comparisons of treatment outcomes in routine care. Health-care utilization databases record drug use and selected health outcomes for large populations in a timely way and reflect routine care, and therefore may be the preferred data source for comparative effectiveness research. Confounding caused by selective prescribing based on indication, severity, and prognosis threatens the validity of non-randomized database studies that often have limited details on clinical information. Several recent developments may bring the field closer to acceptable validity, including approaches that exploit the concepts of proxy variables using high-dimensional propensity scores, within-patient variation of drug exposure using crossover designs, and between-provider variation in prescribing preference using instrumental variable (IV) analyses.

  • Source
    • "The recent emphasis on comparative effectiveness research has promoted interdisciplinary sharing of methods and perspectives [4], including those from econometrics, statistics , health services research, and epidemiology [5]. However , researchers may be unfamiliar with the appropriate assumptions and estimands produced by a particular analytic technique. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the assumptions and estimands across three approaches to estimate the effect of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) on mortality. Using data from the Renal Management Information System, we conducted two analyses using a change to bundled payment that, we hypothesized, mimicked random assignment to ESA (pre-post, difference-in-difference, and instrumental variable analyses). A third analysis was based on multiply imputing potential outcomes using propensity scores. There were 311,087 recipients of ESAs and 13,095 non-recipients. In the pre-post comparison, we identified no clear relationship between bundled payment (measured by calendar time) and the incidence of death within 6 months (risk difference -1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.0%, 4.0%). In the instrumental variable analysis, the risk of mortality was similar among ESA recipients (risk difference -0.9%; 95% CI -2.1, 0.3). In the multiple imputation analysis, we observed a 4.2% (95% CI 3.4%, 4.9%) absolute reduction in mortality risk with the use of ESAs, but closer to the null for patients with baseline hematocrit level >36%. Methods emanating from different disciplines often rely on different assumptions but can be informative about a similar causal contrast. The implications of these distinct approaches are discussed.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 08/2013; 66(8 Suppl):S42-50. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.014 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The assessment of a health technology is frequently accompanied by uncertainty about its impact, at short or long terms, on the health of the population. The Health Authorities may request additional « post-registration » data that will allow a relevant reassessment of these technologies. The responsibility to collect this information lies with the industry and the HAS evaluates the methodology. This guideline provides practical benchmarks on methodological aspects of these studies. It describes the different types of studies to consider depending on the objectives, including the use of databases and cohorts and European studies. It emphasizes the importance of establishing a scientific committee, clearly defining the objectives of the study, justifying the methodological choices, documenting the representativeness or completeness of centers, investigators and patients, limiting the number of lost of follow-up patients and missing data, describing the statistical analysis methods, the bias and their possible impact on results. The publication of the results of these studies is strongly encouraged.
    Thérapie 67(5):409-21. DOI:10.2515/therapie/2012065 · 0.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Risk management plans aim to facilitate a proactive approach to potential safety concerns by both the marketing authorisation holder and the competent authorities. Within this hospital pharmacists can play an important role in the pharmacovigilance of biopharmaceuticals.
Show more


Available from