Literature DB >> 11802589

'Fourth hurdle reviews', NICE, and database applications.

J E Paul1, P Trueman.   

Abstract

The 'fourth hurdle' is commonly described as what has to be done to gain market access and reimbursement for a pharmaceutical, medical technology, or biotech product. Demonstrating to regulatory agencies just a product's safety, efficacy, and quality (the first three hurdles) is no longer sufficient. Manufacturers must often now demonstrate both clinical effectiveness (Is the new product better than currently available alternatives, including no treatment?) as well as cost-effectiveness (Is the product good value for money?) in order to assure success in the marketplace. In the last few years there have been a number of governmental and non-governmental agencies constituted for fourth hurdle reviews and recommendations to governments and other funding and reimbursement agencies. The National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) in the UK, although not the first such group, is arguably the most visible and influential. This paper describes the NICE review process in detail, as well as the expected substantial impact of fourth hurdle reviews on drug development and clinical trials. Potential uses of databases and modelling in fourth hurdle reviews are also explored.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11802589     DOI: 10.1002/pds.600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  7 in total

1.  Assessment of the pharmaceutical market in Poland after accession to the European Union.

Authors:  Patricia L Willert
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2007-12

Review 2.  Added therapeutic value of memantine in the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  T Heinen-Kammerer; H Rulhoff; S Nelles; R Rychlik
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.859

Review 3.  Investigator-initiated trials of targeted oncology agents: why independent research is at risk?

Authors:  L Bergmann; B Berns; A G Dalgleish; M von Euler; T T Hecht; G L Lappin; N Reed; S Palmeri; J Smyth; S Embacher-Aichorn; H Zwierzina
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  Does it help that efficacy has been proven once we start discussing (added) benefit?

Authors:  Armin Koch; Yvonne Ziert
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 2.207

5.  Incremental benefits of novel pharmaceuticals in the UK: a cross-sectional analysis of NICE technology appraisals from 2010 to 2020.

Authors:  Tobias B Polak; David GJ Cucchi; Jonathan J Darrow; Matthijs M Versteegh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Health economic evaluations of medical devices in the People's Republic of China: A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Rongrong Zhang; Farhang Modaresi; Oleg Borisenko
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-04-09

7.  Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014.

Authors:  Anthony J Hatswell; Gianluca Baio; Jesse A Berlin; Alar Irs; Nick Freemantle
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.