US groups outline comparative effectiveness research priorities
This article was originally published in Scrip
Two US government-sponsored reports recommending how to spend $1.1 billion in comparative effectiveness research (CER) funds call for significant infrastructure investments to sustain such research over the long term.
You may also be interested in...
Although US FDA wants sponsors to maintain blinded Phase III follow-up as long as possible after emergency use authorization or licensure, vaccine researcher Larry Corey says it will become ‘untenable’ to keep individuals in placebo arm once they qualify for vaccine access under the allocation framework.
Industry principles for enhancing diversity in clinical trials call for use of digital data collection tools and flexible scheduling of study site visits to reduce barriers to enrollment, as well as greater involvement of under-represented communities in the trial design planning process and recruitment of investigators with diverse ethnic and racial backrounds.
Use of expedited pathway based on drug’s effect on brain amyloid would be problematic given advisory committee’s views of a disconnect between biomarker data and clinical efficacy results; however, one FDA expert sees potential for agency to grant accelerated approval on basis of an intermediate clinical endpoint – the same endpoint on which Biogen seeks regular approval.