Boston, MA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 10/05/2012 -- Clinicians and patients want to be able to compare new drugs with those already available to inform evidence-based medicine, and reimbursement authorities require comparative data to support their decisions. This report discusses the optimization of comparative efficacy trials, with particular attention to the question of comparator selection.
- Understand the role that comparative efficacy plays in the evaluation of new drugs.
- Identify decision-making processes for guiding key choices in the design of pivotal comparative efficacy trials.
- Understand the importance of comparator selection and the consequences of later disagreements with external authorities.
- Review the factors that need to be considered in making a comparator selection.
- Assess the opportunity for gaining input from drug evaluation authorities.
View Full Report Details and Table of Contents
The choice of active control group for a comparative trial can be difficult due to variation in the standard of care across different geographic regions and changing medical practices
Numerous recent appraisals by the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Germany's Institut fur Qualitat und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) have demonstrated the critical stance that is being readily taken by these bodies with regard to comparator selection.
Scientific advice from regulators and, where possible, from health technology assessors or reimbursement authorities can be extremely useful in guiding clinical development planning, especially in the choice of comparator.
Reasons to Get this Report
- How should an active comparator and other features of comparative efficacy trials be chosen?
- What decision-making techniques are available to those designing comparative efficacy trials?
- Can the range of comparators be expected to extend beyond pharmaceutical interventions?
- To what extent have drug evaluation committees shown flexibility in disagreements about the optimum comparator?
- Which regulatory and reimbursement authorities are willing to offer scientific advice in the design of a comparative efficacy trial?
About Fast Market Research
Fast Market Research is an online aggregator and distributor of market research and business information. Representing the world's top research publishers and analysts, we provide quick and easy access to the best competitive intelligence available. Our unbiased, expert staff will help you find the right research to fit your requirements and your budget. For more information about these or related research reports, please visit our website at http://www.fastmr.com or call us at 1.800.844.8156.
Browse all Pharmaceuticals research reports at Fast Market Research
You may also be interested in these related reports:
- Strategies for Comparative Efficacy Trials
- Emerging Market for Clinical Trials in Argentina - Major Cost Advantages over the US in Conducting Clinical Trials Will Encourage Drug Development
- Endpoints - Clinical Trials in Dermatology - Inflammatory Lesions Count is the Key Determinant of Success in Acne Vulgaris Clinical Trials
- Emerging Market for Clinical Trials in Brazil - Improved Guidelines from ANVISA and CONEP are Shortening the Regulatory Approval Process and Advancing the Market
- Endpoints - Clinical Trials in Cardiovascular Disorders - Optimal Use of Surrogate Endpoints and Clinical Biomarkers are Key Determinants of Success
- Endpoints - Clinical Trials in CNS Disorders - Multiple Endpoints and Ratings Scales are Becoming More Widely Adopted
- Endpoints - Clinical Trials in Autoimmune Disorders - Multiple Primary and Secondary Endpoints are Increasingly Being Applied to Ensure Success
- Endpoints - Clinical Trials in Orphan Diseases - Highest Number of Terminated Trials Focused on Mulitiple Myeloma
- Emerging Market for Clinical Trials in Poland - Cost Advantages of Nearly 30% as Compared to the US
- Emerging Markets for Clinical Trials in India - Favorable Regulatory Environment and Cost Effectiveness Will Accelerate the Number of Clinical Trials