Literature DB >> 21732704

US FDA Modernization Act, section 114: uses, opportunities and implications for comparative effectiveness research.

Peter J Neumann1, Pei-Jung Lin, Tom E Hughes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Section 114 of the 1997 US FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) is an important vehicle for pharmaceutical companies to promote the economic value of their drugs to formulary decision makers, but little is known about how the Section has been interpreted and used.
METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of a convenience sample of 35 outcomes directors of major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. We asked them about their interpretation of, and experiences with, Section 114, as well as their views regarding the FDA's role in the matter, and whether the advent of comparative effectiveness research (CER) will affect the use of Section 114 promotions.
RESULTS: Of the 35 experts, 16 (46%) completed the survey. 81% stated they always or frequently consider using Section 114 when making promotional claims for drugs. 75% stated that the FDA should issue guidance on how to make such promotions to payers, especially what qualifies as "healthcare economic information" and "competent and reliable scientific evidence." Most expected to use Section 114 to a greater extent in the future, and agreed that the increased focus on CER would increase Section 114 use.
CONCLUSIONS: The survey suggests strong awareness about Section 114 among the outcomes directors and some use of the Section for promotional purposes. It also reflects a belief that CER will increase use of Section 114 promotions, and that guidance from the FDA is needed. More clarity - and, ideally, flexible interpretation - from the FDA is warranted, especially given the rise of CER.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21732704     DOI: 10.2165/11590510-000000000-00000

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  The FDA's regulation of health economic information.

Authors:  P J Neumann; K Claxton; M C Weinstein
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Economic messages in prescription drug advertisements in medical journals.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Kara Zivin Bambauer; Vijay Ramakrishnan; Kate A Stewart; Chaim M Bell
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Economic content in medical journal advertisements for medical devices and prescription drugs.

Authors:  D Clay Ackerly; Seth W Glickman; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report.

Authors:  Louis P Garrison; Peter J Neumann; Pennifer Erickson; Deborah Marshall; C Daniel Mullins
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  What ever happened to FDAMA Section 114? A look back after 10 years.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Drug company advertising in medical journals about the health-economic advantages of their products for 2000-2006 versus 1990-1999.

Authors:  Jennifer A Palmer; Alison R Timm; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  J Manag Care Pharm       Date:  2008-10

7.  Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States.

Authors:  Sean D Sullivan; John Watkins; Brian Sweet; Scott D Ramsey
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling.

Authors:  Randall S Stafford; Todd H Wagner; Philip W Lavori
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 91.245

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  The case for less, not more, US FDA regulation.

Authors:  John A Vernon; Joseph H Golec
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.