Literature DB >> 10537960

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Effectiveness versus efficacy studies.

D A Revicki1, L Frank.   

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic data may be obtained within the context of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and from effectiveness studies in the 'real world'. The differences between the 2 types of study design have implications for the types of data that can be obtained and the interpretation of the resulting findings. Because RCTs are designed to assess the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, and because the study design of RCTs emphasises internal validity over generalisability, the pharmacoeconomic data collected from them are limited. The data may not be applicable to the more heterogeneous patients encountered in actual clinical practice, and cost estimates may be inaccurate because of protocol requirements. Effectiveness studies, in which treatments are studied under real-world conditions, remedy some of these limitations. Generalisability to actual users is generally enhanced in effectiveness designs, but data may be biased in other ways. This brief review compares the 2 study designs as they relate to pharmacoeconomic evaluations in terms of the research questions they address, design differences and their implications for study bias, data collection and data analysis and the generalisability of their results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10537960     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199915050-00001

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


  30 in total

1.  Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. What do we do about costs?

Authors:  D M Eddy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-09-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Statistical handling of drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials.

Authors:  A Heyting; J T Tolboom; J G Essers
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new medical treatments in psychiatry.

Authors:  D A Revicki; B R Luce
Journal:  Psychopharmacol Bull       Date:  1995

4.  Measuring outcomes of care for substance use and mental disorders.

Authors:  M A Burnam
Journal:  New Dir Ment Health Serv       Date:  1996

5.  In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care.

Authors:  B J O'Brien; M F Drummond; R J Labelle; A Willan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Cost-effectiveness comparisons using "real world" randomized trials: the case of new antidepressant drugs.

Authors:  G Simon; E Wagner; M Vonkorff
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Telephone versus in-person clinical and health status assessment interviews in patients with bipolar disorder.

Authors:  D A Revicki; M Tohen; L Gyulai; C Thompson; S Pike; A Davis-Vogel; C Zarate
Journal:  Harv Rev Psychiatry       Date:  1997 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.732

8.  When is a cost-effectiveness claim valid? How much should the FDA care?

Authors:  B R Luce; A L Hillman
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.229

9.  Long-term outcomes of initial antidepressant drug choice in a "real world" randomized trial.

Authors:  G E Simon; J Heiligenstein; D Revicki; M VonKorff; W J Katon; E Ludman; L Grothaus; E Wagner
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug

10.  A randomized trial to assess effectiveness and cost in clinical practice: rationale and design of the Cholesterol Reduction Intervention Study (CRIS).

Authors:  G Oster; G M Borok; J Menzin; J F Heys; R S Epstein; V Quinn; V V Benson; R J Dudl; A Epstein
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1995-02
View more
  57 in total

Review 1.  Real world designs in economic evaluation. Bridging the gap between clinical research and policy-making.

Authors:  R Baltussen; R Leidl; A Ament
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Observational studies of antihypertensive medication use and compliance: is drug choice a factor in treatment adherence?

Authors:  K A Payne; S Esmonde-White
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 3.  Accounting for noncompliance in pharmacoeconomic evaluations.

Authors:  D A Hughes; A Bagust; A Haycox; T Walley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Modelling in health economic evaluation. What is its place? What is its value?

Authors:  A Brennan; R Akehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries.

Authors:  Robert Welte; Talitha Feenstra; Hans Jager; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  The impact of health economics on healthcare delivery. A primary care perspective.

Authors:  D P Kernick
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Novel approaches to incorporating pharmacoeconomic studies into phase III clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  H Fillit; J Cummings; P Neumann; T McLaughlin; P Salavtore; C Leibman
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.075

Review 8.  Modeling and simulation of adherence: approaches and applications in therapeutics.

Authors:  Leslie A Kenna; Line Labbé; Jeffrey S Barrett; Marc Pfister
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.009

9.  Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable risperidone versus flupentixol decanoate in the treatment of schizophrenia: a Markov model parameterized using administrative data.

Authors:  Simon Frey; Roland Linder; Georg Juckel; Tom Stargardt
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-02-19

10.  From randomised clinical trials to clinical practice : a pragmatic cost-effectiveness analysis of Paclitaxel in first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Samuel Limat; Marie-Christine Woronoff-Lemsi; Céline Menat; Anne Madroszyk-Flandin; Yacine Merrouche
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.