Newsletter Sign-Up

Keep up to date with NPC news and events by signing up for our e-newsletter E.V.I.dently, and our CER Daily Newsfeed.

Subscribe POLICY

NEJM Commentary Rekindles Debate on Communicating CER

July 18, 2013

A commentary published on July 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine is rekindling the debate about comparative effectiveness research (CER) and the pharmaceutical industry’s ability to communicate health information.

Tufts Medical Center economist Peter Neumann, ScD, who authored the commentary, suggests that Section 114 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 be “extended to allow drug companies to promote comparative effectiveness research to health plans and other payers. The law would retain its prohibition against such promotions directly to doctors or patients.”

Dr. Neumann’s paper continues the discussion of this issue that kicked off last year with a conference hosted by the National Pharmaceutical Council, a series of articles in Health Affairs, and the federal circuit court of appeals decision on US v. Caronia.

So what does this mean, and why does this debate matter? As NPC has explained before,

To understand industry’s challenge, it is important to recognize two key issues. First, the type of research used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make drug approval and labeling decisions is more stringent than the information that can be used by other health care decision makers. Second, FDA regulates the type of research that can be discussed by industry in most forums, but not by other stakeholders.

For a new drug to gain FDA approval, a company must provide “substantial evidence” of effectiveness, a standard under which “at least two major clinical trials are required for product approval, although one trial with supporting evidence is sufficient in limited circumstances.” This “substantial evidence” forms the basis for the drug’s labeling, and manufacturers face stiff fines and penalties if they go beyond the labeling claims when marketing or discussing the use of a product outside limited venues recognized to constitute non-promotional scientific exchange.

Although these clinical trials are considered the “gold standard” in research, most of the millions of dollars in CER that will be funded by PCORI will be derived from observational studies, data pulled from claims and payer databases, literature reviews and other public resources, none of which is considered acceptable for approval purposes by the FDA. With an increasing number of payers, academics and government agencies turning to observational methods of conducting CER, the trend leaves industry out of the conversation.

FDA officials have made statements acknowledging industry’s right to dispute unsupported CER evidence as long as the communication is not promotional in nature and reflects the patients, endpoints, and uses specific to the drug’s labeling. With CER studies examining a variety of off-label outcomes and being published in a range of venues outside of scientific journals, the role companies may have in the conversation is significantly reduced.

In a worst-case scenario, a payer could share an inadequate study about off-label use of a drug with its network of health care providers and patients. The results, which have not been subjected to any external oversight or transparency in the research protocol or analysis plan, would likely shape patients’ and providers’ views of the drugs involved and contribute to decision-making. Relying on such an inadequate study could lead to poor patient outcomes and rising costs. Even if the company that produces the drug spots the misleading information, existing communications rules potentially prevent the company from sharing insights on the study’s results and limitations with doctors and patients.

This unequal ability to communicate harms the very people who stand to benefit most from CER findings – the patients and health care providers facing medical decisions. The current communications environment increases the risk that useful details will be withheld or misleading information will go unchallenged. Decision-makers deserve to hear all viewpoints and weigh each source’s potential biases for themselves.

Given the potential penalties that would be incurred for violating the rules, however, companies will be hesitant to participate in open discourse about CER without clear guidance from the FDA. To open communication channels, the FDA will need to articulate standards that encourage dialogue and information-sharing.
Blog Post

Optimizing the recipe for ‘health care spending pie’: Finding the most effective resource allocation

As health care costs continue to climb, rising 5.3 percent in 2015 and approaching 18 percent of the U.S. economy, it is more essential than ever to...
Blog Post

Are We Getting the Right Data to Make Individualized Health Decisions? Maybe.

Personalized medicine—an evolving field in which physicians use diagnostic tests to determine which medical treatments will work best for each...
Blog Post

CER Tweets of the Week: AHCJ CER Fellowships Announced; Latest Issue of JCER Published (August 8-12)

Last week, comparative effectiveness research stakeholders tweeted about the announcement of this year’s Association of Health Care Journalists CER...
Blog Post

CER Tweets of the Week: EBM in Elite Sports; Clinical Nuances (August 1 – August 5)

Last week, comparative effectiveness research stakeholders tweeted about a blog post published in BMJ (@BJSM_BMJ) that discusses the use of evidence...
Press Release

Data Can Offer Critical Insights, But Roadblocks to Data Access Persist

(Washington, D.C., April 1, 2016)—Data is key to improving health outcomes and creating efficiencies in our health care system, but a new study...
Press Release

Fit for Purpose? New NPC, AcademyHealth Framework Closes Gaps Between Payer Needs and Research Answers

(Washington, DC, September 21, 2015)—Despite multi-million dollar public and private investments to tap into big data and improve the evidence...
Press Release

NPC Comments on CMS’ Announcement to Allow Broader Access to Publicly Funded Databases

(Washington, DC, June 2, 2015)—The National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC) today commented on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS)...
Press Release

State Medicaid Directors Share Views on Comparative Effectiveness Research And Its Impact on Policy in National Pharmaceutical Council Survey

(Washington, DC, April 16, 2015)—A new survey conducted on behalf of the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC) shows that state Medicaid directors...
Commentary and Testimony Page

The Importance of Evidence, Value, Access and Innovation in 2016

Last year, in our 2015 Health Care Outlook published in Chain Drug Review, I highlighted the recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and...
Commentary and Testimony Page

Chain Drug Review – Commentary: “Health Care Outlook for 2015”

This commentary was originally published in the January 5, 2015 issue of Chain Drug Review.By: Dan Leonard, President, National Pharmaceutical...
Commentary and Testimony Page

NPC Comments on PCORI Proposal for Peer Review of Primary Research and Public Release of Research Findings

November 7, 2014Dr. Joe SelbyExecutive DirectorPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute1828 L St., NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20036Dear Dr....
Commentary and Testimony Page

The State of CER and the Environment for Health Care Decision Making

This month, NPC released its third annual survey on stakeholders’ views on comparative effectiveness research (CER), “The State of Comparative...
YouTube Videos

2016 Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Environment for Health Care Decision-Making

This one-hour webinar highlights the results of NPC's annual survey of comparative effectiveness research (CER) stakeholders and includes a panel...
YouTube Videos

When Is Evidence Fit for Purpose? Closing Gaps Between Researchers, Payers

Despite multi-million dollar public and private investments to tap into big data and improve the evidence available for health care decision-making,...
YouTube Videos

Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Environment for Health Care Decision-Making

During a March 26, 2015 webinar, the National Pharmaceutical Council discussed the results of its annual stakeholder survey on comparative...
YouTube Videos

Real-World Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research Findings on Clinical Practice

National Pharmaceutical Council Chief Science Officer Robert W. Dubois, MD, PhD, discusses a peer-reviewed study suggesting that changes are needed...
Blog Post

Optimizing the recipe for ‘health care spending pie’: Finding the most effective resource allocation

As health care costs continue to climb, rising 5.3 percent in 2015 and approaching 18 percent of the U.S. economy, it is more essential than ever to...
Blog Post

Are We Getting the Right Data to Make Individualized Health Decisions? Maybe.

Personalized medicine—an evolving field in which physicians use diagnostic tests to determine which medical treatments will work best for each...
Blog Post

CER Tweets of the Week: AHCJ CER Fellowships Announced; Latest Issue of JCER Published (August 8-12)

Last week, comparative effectiveness research stakeholders tweeted about the announcement of this year’s Association of Health Care Journalists CER...
Blog Post

CER Tweets of the Week: EBM in Elite Sports; Clinical Nuances (August 1 – August 5)

Last week, comparative effectiveness research stakeholders tweeted about a blog post published in BMJ (@BJSM_BMJ) that discusses the use of evidence...

Got CER? Educating Pharmacists for Practice in the Future: New Tools for New Challenges

This study provides an early evaluation of the CER Collaborative's training program's impact on...

Data, Data Everywhere, But Access Remains a Big Issue for Researchers

This study captures the policy inconsistencies and hurdles that can hinder use of publicly funded...
cersurvey16

2016 Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Environment for Health Care Decision-Making

NPC's sixth annual survey of stakeholder views on comparative effectiveness research (CER) and the...
  •  
  • 1 of 15
  • >