• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

私营行业在实用的对照效果试验中的作用。

The role of private industry in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials.

机构信息

Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA.

出版信息

J Comp Eff Res. 2012 Mar;1(2):147-56. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.9.

DOI:10.2217/cer.12.9
PMID:24237375
Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) includes pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) to address 'real-world' effectiveness. CER interest would be expected to stimulate biopharmaceutical manufacturer PCT investment; however, this does not seem to be the case. In this article we identify all industry-sponsored PCT studies from 1996 to 2010; analyze them across a variety of characteristics, including sponsor, research question, design, comparators and results; and suggest methodological and policy changes to spur future manufacturer PCT investment. Nine 'naturalistic', head-to-head versus standard of care or similar agent PCTs were identified. Two included a 'usual care' arm. Chronic care trials' length averaged 12 months (range: 6-24 months), six of which reported equivocal or no difference in effectiveness; results of two chronic and the single acute care PCTs favored the sponsor drug. None reported the sponsor drug inferior. Of seven that evaluated utilization or costs, six reported no differences and four of five studies comparing brand-generic drugs reported no difference. Whereas private investment in PCTs is in the public interest, manufacturers apparently have not yet seen the business case. To induce investment, we propose several methodological and regulatory policy innovations designed to reduce business risk by decreasing outcome variability and increasing trial efficiency, flexibility and market applicability.

摘要

比较实效研究(CER)包括实用临床试验(PCTs)以解决“真实世界”的效果问题。人们预计 CER 的兴趣将刺激生物制药制造商对 PCT 的投资;然而,事实似乎并非如此。在本文中,我们确定了 1996 年至 2010 年间所有由行业资助的 PCT 研究;分析了它们在赞助商、研究问题、设计、对照和结果等各个方面的特点;并提出了方法学和政策变革的建议,以促进未来制造商对 PCT 的投资。确定了九项“自然主义”、与标准护理或类似药物的头对头实用临床试验。其中两项包括“常规护理”手臂。慢性护理试验的平均长度为 12 个月(范围:6-24 个月),其中有 6 项报告在效果上没有差异或差异不明显;两项慢性和一项急性护理的 PCT 结果都有利于赞助商的药物。没有一项报告赞助商的药物较差。在评估利用或成本的七项研究中,有六项报告没有差异,五项比较品牌仿制药的研究中有四项报告没有差异。虽然私人对 PCT 的投资符合公共利益,但制造商显然尚未看到商业案例。为了诱导投资,我们提出了一些方法学和监管政策创新的建议,旨在通过减少结果的可变性、提高试验的效率、灵活性和市场适用性来降低商业风险。

相似文献

1
The role of private industry in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials.私营行业在实用的对照效果试验中的作用。
J Comp Eff Res. 2012 Mar;1(2):147-56. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.9.
2
The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research.实用随机对照试验(pRCTs)在比较效果研究中的作用。
Clin Trials. 2012 Aug;9(4):436-46. doi: 10.1177/1740774512450097. Epub 2012 Jul 2.
3
Recommendations for the design of Phase 3 pharmaceutical trials that are more informative for patients, clinicians, and payers.为了使第三阶段药物试验对患者、临床医生和支付者更具信息量,提出了以下建议。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2013 Nov;36(2):356-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.08.008. Epub 2013 Aug 31.
4
Can managed care organizations partner with manufacturers for comparative effectiveness research?管理式医疗组织能否与制造商合作开展比较效果研究?
Am J Manag Care. 2008 Mar;14(3):149-56.
5
Pragmatic clinical trials: U.S. payers' views on their value.务实临床试验:美国支付方对其价值的看法。
Am J Manag Care. 2013 May 1;19(5):e158-65.
6
Approaches to answering critical CER questions.回答关键CER问题的方法。
Cancer Treat Res. 2015;164:1-14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12553-4_1.
7
The methods of comparative effectiveness research.比较疗效研究的方法。
Annu Rev Public Health. 2012 Apr;33:425-45. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124610. Epub 2012 Jan 3.
8
Randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research.随机对照试验和比较效果研究。
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec 1;30(34):4194-201. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.2352. Epub 2012 Oct 15.
9
Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research.在进行比较有效性研究的系统评价时需要考虑的一些方法学要点。
Clin Trials. 2012 Feb;9(1):27-34. doi: 10.1177/1740774511427062. Epub 2011 Nov 2.
10
Comparative effectiveness research: opportunities in surgical oncology.比较疗效研究:外科肿瘤学的机遇。
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jan;24(1):43-8. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2013.09.003.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of the characteristics and the degree of pragmatism exhibited by pragmatic-labelled trials of antineoplastic treatments.分析抗肿瘤治疗的语用标记试验的特点和实用主义程度。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Jun 24;23(1):148. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01975-9.
2
Real-world data in oncology: a questionnaire-based analysis of the academic research landscape examining the policies and experiences of the cancer cooperative groups.肿瘤学真实世界数据:一项基于问卷调查的学术研究现状分析,旨在探讨癌症合作组的政策和经验。
ESMO Open. 2023 Apr;8(2):100878. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.100878. Epub 2023 Feb 21.
3
Comparing Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Pharmacotherapy.
比较慢性阻塞性肺疾病药物治疗的随机对照试验和真实世界研究。
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020 Jun 2;15:1225-1243. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S244942. eCollection 2020.
4
A systematic review of head-to-head trials of approved monoclonal antibodies used in cancer: an overview of the clinical trials agenda.头对头临床试验系统评价:已批准用于癌症的单克隆抗体的概述
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep;145(9):2303-2311. doi: 10.1007/s00432-019-02984-2. Epub 2019 Aug 8.
5
Industry sponsorship and research outcome.行业赞助与研究成果。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2(2):MR000033. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3.
6
Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful.为何大多数临床研究并无用处。
PLoS Med. 2016 Jun 21;13(6):e1002049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049. eCollection 2016 Jun.
7
An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection.一项开放标签、实用性、随机对照临床试验,以评估达托霉素与万古霉素治疗复杂性皮肤和皮肤结构感染的相对疗效。
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 7;15:503. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1261-9.
8
Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.实用临床试验的把关者。
Clin Trials. 2015 Oct;12(5):442-8. doi: 10.1177/1740774515597699. Epub 2015 Sep 15.