Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1053-1058 , October 2010

Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by appropriately designed clinical trials

  • Nick Freemantle

      Affiliations

    • School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +44-121-414-7943; fax: +44-121-414-3353.
    • ,
  • Thomas Strack

      Affiliations

    • Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Global Research and Development Center, Deerfield, IL, USA

,Accepted 28 July 2009.

References 

  1. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:499–505[reprinted from J Chron Dis. 1967;20:637–48]
  2. Drug study designs. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/GuidancesInformationSheetsandNotices/ucm113709.htmAccessed April 6, 2009
  3. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878–1886
  4. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–1892
  5. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Lau J. Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?. BMJ. 2001;322:879–880
  6. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351:123–127
  7. Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1029–1035
  8. Yusuf S, Dagenais G, Pogue J, Bosch J, Sleight P. Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:154–160
  9. Bosco JLF, Silliman RA, Thwin SS, Geiger AM, Buist DS, Prout MN, et al. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.001.
  10. Peacock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations?. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1907–1909
  11. Bombardier C, Maetzel A. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new treatments: efficacy versus effectiveness studies?. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58:I82–I85
  12. Freemantle N, Hessel F. The applicability and generalizability of findings from clinical trials for health policy decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:5–10
  13. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–1632
  14. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. for the CONSORT and Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare (Practihc) groups Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390
  15. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–145
  16. Freemantle N, Drummond M. Should clinical trials with concurrent economic analyses be blinded?. JAMA. 1997;277:63–64
  17. Ernst E, Canter PH. Limitations of ‘‘pragmatic” trials. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:203–204

PII: S0895-4356(09)00226-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.07.013

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1053-1058 , October 2010

Article Tools