Stem Cells http://www.peprotech.com/
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bennett, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gorin, N. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bennett, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gorin, N. C.

Stem Cells, Vol 12, 424-429, Copyright © 1994 by AlphaMed Press

REVIEWS

Economic analyses of clinical trials in cancer: are they helpful to policy makers?

CL Bennett, JL Armitage, S LeSage, SC Gulati, JO Armitage and NC Gorin
Division of Health Services Research and Development, Durham Veterans Affairs Hospital, North Carolina.

Although clinical trials are being used to evaluate economic outcomes of new agents, there are methodological problems. Decisions based on these analyses may lead to inefficient use of medical resources. Randomized clinical trials provide important information on the efficacy of new pharmaceutical agents for cancer patients. Policy makers are likely to require both economic and clinical data in order to approve pharmaceuticals for widespread use. Clinical trials provide an opportunity to evaluate economic outcomes for new agents. However, the interpretation of economic analyses of clinical trials raises issues related to perspective of the investigators, study design, collection of data on resource utilization, and generalizability of data to other settings. In this paper, we review these issues and illustrate problems associated with analyses of economic data from a recent phase III trial of hematopoietic growth factors. Clinical results were similar in both Paris and New York in this phase III trial. However, economic results differed markedly between the hospital in Paris and the hospital in New York. While significant savings in terms of fewer days in the hospital and fewer laboratory tests and radiographs for the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) patients were noted at the New York hospital, resource savings were not identified at the hospital in France. Caution must be used when reimbursement policies are based on economic analyses of clinical trials. Policy decisions must be based on studies that are carefully conducted, analyzed, and interpreted from both a clinical and an economic perspective.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
J. R. Adams, C. Angelotta, and C. L. Bennett
When the Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Is 20%, Prophylactic Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Is Clinically Effective, but Is It Cost-Effective?
J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2006; 24(19): 2975 - 2977.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
D. H. Smith, J. R. Adams, S. R. D. Johnston, A. Gordon, M. F. Drummond, and C. L. Bennett
A comparative economic analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan in ovarian cancer in the USA and the UK
Ann. Onc., October 1, 2002; 13(10): 1590 - 1597.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
STEM CELLS THE ONCOLOGIST CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS
http://www.epitomics.com
Copyright © 1994 by AlphaMed Press.