Literature DB >> 10163966

Role of decision analysis in relation to clinical trials and a US perspective of the Battelle model.

B E Hillner1.   

Abstract

Economic assessment of evolving technologies is assuming increasing importance worldwide. One form of economic assessment uses decision analysis, a simulation technique, to determine whether performing a clinical trial is worthwhile. This type of assessment may streamline data collection within a clinical trial, and can aid in the interpretation of a trial result with substantial benefits and toxicities. Although second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is in common use, its benefit is unclear and it is associated with substantial cost. A database search of currently active or recently closed randomised phase III comparative trials for metastatic breast cancer found only 6 trials involving a comparison of chemotherapies. Only 1 trial allowed prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Given the paucity of forthcoming clinical data, decision analysis is an appropriate tool for estimating the effectiveness of potential treatments with second-line agents for metastatic breast cancer. The findings of the Battelle decision analysis model, described in this issue, identified response rates and 1-year mortality as the key areas of focus for comparative trials. Decision analysis can improve the design and efficacy of prospective, comparative trials but cannot replace them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 10163966     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199600092-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  10 in total

1.  Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada.

Authors:  A S Detsky
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. The ways forward.

Authors:  M F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Use and misuse of the term "cost effective" in medicine.

Authors:  P Doubilet; M C Weinstein; B J McNeil
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-01-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  J Hutton; R Brown; M Borowitz; K Abrams; M Rothman; A Shakespeare
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Using economic analysis to determine the resource consequences of choices made in planning clinical trials.

Authors:  A S Detsky
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

Review 6.  Decision analysis.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-01-29       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  From the Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  S L Nightingale
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-06-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. Estimates using decision analysis while awaiting clinical trial results.

Authors:  B E Hillner; T J Smith; C E Desch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-04-15       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  High-dose chemotherapy in solid tumours. A review of published data in selected tumours with a commentary.

Authors:  K H Antman; R L Souhami
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  Chemotherapy of advanced breast cancer: outcome and prognostic factors.

Authors:  W M Gregory; P Smith; M A Richards; C J Twelves; R K Knight; R D Rubens
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 7.640

  10 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Docetaxel. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  H M Lamb; L R Wiseman
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.981

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.