Funding Research on Comparative Effectiveness

From the Wall St. Journal: Coming Soon: Comparative Effectiveness Research for Biotech

Which treatment works best for a given medical condition? The big stimulus package includes $1.1 billion in funding for so-called “comparative-effectiveness” research aimed at answering that question.

Now the NIH has published a list of high-priority projects it wants to fund, providing a clearer picture of just how that money may be spent. The list — online here — suggests scrutiny for some of the best-selling drugs for heart conditions and asthma, among others.

Drugs for auto-immune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis also make the list. The NIH doesn’t name any of the drugs, but four of the biggest are Enbrel (from Amgen and Wyeth), Remicade (J&J and Schering-Plough), Humira (Abbott) and Orencia (Bristol-Myers Squibb).

They cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 per patient per year, and last year combined U.S. sales of these four were about $9 billion. Yet there have been few, if any, head-to-head trials to see which one works best.

Effectiveness — comparative effectiveness — matters, ethically.


About Chris MacDonald

I'm a philosopher who teaches at Ryerson University's Ted Rogers School of Management in Toronto, Canada. Most of my scholarly research is on business ethics and healthcare ethics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s