SOURCE: Cutting Edge Information

Cutting Edge Information

October 16, 2015 11:36 ET

Only 40 Percent of Global Market Access Teams Utilize Dedicated Comparative Effectiveness Research Studies

Companies Turn Instead to Existing Phase 3 Trials and Database Studies for Necessary Data, According to Cutting Edge Information

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC--(Marketwired - October 16, 2015) - Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is a significant cost-driver for health economics operations at many life sciences companies. Furthermore, because such research has the potential for negative product impact if study results are not favorable, convincing internal stakeholders of the importance of dedicated CER studies can be difficult. According to research from pharmaceutical intelligence firm Cutting Edge Information, many companies look for ways to generate useful comparative effectiveness data without having to budget for dedicated trials.

Among surveyed companies, only 40 percent of global teams collect CER through dedicated trials. At the country-level, only 20 percent of teams utilize dedicated trials. Instead, many global groups make sure that existing Phase 3 trials collect appropriate endpoints that include a comparison element with a competitor. At both the global and country levels, database studies are also extremely common.

"Database studies may be a way around dedicated CER trial budgets, but come with their own unique challenges in terms of collecting and using the data," said Jacob Presson, senior research analyst at Cutting Edge Information. "For some specialty therapeutic areas, documentation is not always standardized across all sources, and this lack of uniformity can undermine the validity or viability of a potential database study."

According to Comparative Effectiveness Research: Value Stories that Engage Patients, Physicians and Payers, surveyed global groups are more likely to coordinate CER through investigator-initiated studies (60 percent) than their country-level counterparts.

More attention has been focused on comparative effectiveness research since the United States earmarked $1.1 billion as part of its 2009 stimulus package. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) along with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are two US groups focused improving healthcare quality and conducting comparative effectiveness research.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: Value Stories that Engage Patients, Physicians and Payers, available at, 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 US. The report's highlights include:

  • Benchmarking data showing total comparative effectiveness spending and CER spending per product from 2013 to 2015
  • Top executives' strategic recommendations for delivering CER data to payers -- and using health outcomes liaisons (HOLs) to supplement managed markets account managers' efforts
  • Data showing the amount of time spent discussing CER data with payers

For more information about Comparative Effectiveness Research: Value Stories that Engage Patients, Physicians and Payers and other health economics related topics, please download the report summary at

Contact Information