SOURCE: Cutting Edge Information

Cutting Edge Information Home

June 26, 2017 21:08 ET

Global Pharma Companies Begin Conducting Comparative Effectiveness Research During Phase 3 of Product Development

67% of surveyed market access teams conduct CER during Phase 3

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC--(Marketwired - June 26, 2017) - Research from global market access teams found that pharmaceutical and medical device companies often wait until Phase 3 or later to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER), according to a study published by business intelligence provider, Cutting Edge Information.

The data from the study, Comparative Effectiveness Research: Value Stories that Engage Patients, Physicians and Payers, revealed that 67% of surveyed global market access teams conduct comparative effectiveness research as early as Phase 3, and this number rises to 83% by launch.

Additional findings suggest that country-level groups wait longer to dive into comparative effectiveness research. Only 40% of surveyed country-level market access teams are conducting CER by Phase 3. This delay is largely due to other priorities in resources allocation earlier in development. Post-launch research is still a high priority for country-level teams -- 80% of surveyed country-level groups try to collect CER data once the product has been launched.

"The timing of comparative effectiveness research is an ongoing challenge for many pharmaceutical companies in the industry," said Adam Bianchi, senior director of research at Cutting Edge Information. "CER is also a significant cost-driver for many health economics operations because it carries a heavy risk that a product might come out less favorably, which can make convincing internal stakeholders of their importance very difficult."

As a result, many companies actively look for ways to generate useful comparative effectiveness data without having to budget for dedicated CER trials. Among surveyed companies, only 40% of global teams and just 20% of country-level teams collect CER through dedicated trials.

A more popular choice among both global and country-level groups, according to the study, are database studies -- 80% and 100%, respectively. The study also found that surveyed global market access teams are more likely to be involved with coordinating CER through investigator-initiated trials (60%) than their country-level counterparts.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: Value Stories that Engage Patients, Physicians and Payers, available at https://www.cuttingedgeinfo.com/product/comparative-effectiveness-research/, provides metrics on the cost and duration of comparative effectiveness studies, as well as how to best deliver this data to external stakeholders. The report examines the changing priorities with regards to conducting comparative effectiveness research in the United States. Report highlights include:

  • Benchmarking data showing total comparative effectiveness spending and CER spending per product
  • Top executives' strategic recommendations for delivering CER data to payers -- and using health outcomes liaisons to supplement managed markets account managers' efforts
  • Data showing the amount of time spent discussing CER with payers

For more information on comparative effectiveness research, download the report summary at https://www.cuttingedgeinfo.com/preview/comparative-effectiveness-research-data/.

Image Available: http://www.marketwire.com/library/MwGo/2017/6/21/11G141602/Images/June_26_2017_-_PH213_-_Global_Pharma_Companies_Beg-0f41f98a0644baccb76f43ce7d097402.jpg
Image Available: http://www.marketwire.com/library/MwGo/2017/6/21/11G141602/Images/June_26_2017_-_PH213_-_Global_Pharma_Companies_Beg-29c80e4dd355a7db93976a75bc4e8fd0.jpg

Contact Information