OUTLOOK Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers

被引:99
作者
Eichler, Hans-Georg [2 ]
Bloechl-Daum, Brigitte [1 ]
Abadie, Eric [3 ]
Barnett, David [4 ]
Koenig, Franz [2 ]
Pearson, Steven [5 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Vienna, Dept Clin Pharmacol, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[2] European Med Agcy, London E14 4HB, England
[3] Agence Francaise Secur Sanit Prod Sante, F-93285 St Denis, France
[4] Univ Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirm, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Pharmacol & Therapeut Grp, Leicester LE2 7LX, Leics, England
[5] Inst Clin & Econ Review, Boston, MA USA
关键词
CLINICAL-TRIALS; METAANALYSIS; GUIDELINES; POLICIES; NEED;
D O I
10.1038/nrd3079
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Drug regulatory agencies have traditionally assessed the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs, and the current paradigm dictates that a new drug should be licensed when the benefits outweigh the risks. By contrast, third-party payers base their reimbursement decisions predominantly on the health benefits of the drug relative to existing treatment options (termed relative efficacy; RE). Over the past decade, the role of payers has become more prominent, and time-to-market no longer means time-to-licensing but time-to-reimbursement. Companies now have to satisfy the sometimes divergent needs of both regulators and payers, and to address re during the pre-marketing stages. this article describes the current political background to the re debate and presents the scientific and methodological challenges as they relate to re assessment. In addition, we explain the impact of re on drug development, and speculate on future developments and actions that are likely to be required from key players.
引用
收藏
页码:277 / 291
页数:15
相关论文
共 81 条
  • [31] European Medicines Agency, 2007, REFL PAP METH ISS CO
  • [32] European medicines agency, 1998, ICH Topic E 9 statistical principles for clinical trials
  • [33] How can we regulate medicines better?
    Garattini, Silvio
    Bertele', Vittorio
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2007, 335 (7624): : 803 - 805
  • [34] Does Comparative-Effectiveness Research Threaten Personalized Medicine?.
    Garber, Alan M.
    Tunis, Sean R.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (19) : 1925 - 1927
  • [35] Direct versus indirect comparisons: A summary of the evidence
    Gartlehner, Gerald
    Moore, Charity G.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 24 (02) : 170 - 177
  • [36] Glenny AM, 2005, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V9, P1
  • [37] GOTTLIEB S, 2009, COMP EFFECTIVENESS R
  • [38] Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: An exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics
    Heres, S
    Davis, J
    Maino, K
    Jetzinger, E
    Kissling, W
    Leucht, S
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2006, 163 (02) : 185 - 194
  • [39] HORSLEY W, 2009, N E TREATMENT ADVISO
  • [40] The comparative effectiveness challenge
    Hughes, Bethan
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY, 2009, 8 (04) : 261 - U87