Issues Abound Tracking Efficacy And Effectiveness In Clinical Trials
This article was originally published in Start Up
Executive Summary
A recent JAMA paper assesses the progress of ClinicalTrials.gov, concluding that concerns continue around the use of best methods for generating evidence and the capacity of the clinical trials enterprise to supply the high quality evidence needed to ensure confidence in guidelines. That these issues hold for interventional trials suggests that other strands of clinical research, notably those focused on comparative effectiveness, face similar if not even greater challenges to be able to provide meaningful real-world evidence.
You may also be interested in...
Califf’s Trial Design Prescription: Less Randomization, More Transparency
FDA’s new deputy commissioner is expected to advocate for innovation in clinical studies; Duke cardiologist has led numerous trials, including pivotal Xarelto study and Vytorin outcomes trial.
Develop CER Strategies, Or Be Left Behind, GSK Exec Says
Execs from GlaxoSmithKline and OptumInsight offer insight on the need for pharma companies to develop strategies that account for the growing role comparative effectiveness research is playing in reforming health care, a role that will continue despite what happens in legal and legislative circles in Washington, D.C.
Maintaining a Sustainable Environment for Innovation: Ending the Evidence Arms Race for Regulatory and Reimbursement Decision-Making
Increasing attention on containing healthcare costs has spurred new business opportunities in data aggregation, real-time analytics, and rapid translation of data into evidence on the value of new innovation. This has become a race for more and faster evidence. But is the investment made by manufacturers, payers, and the government resulting in better evidence to aid patients and clinicians in making better decisions?