Report: Cost Should Play Role In Comparing Medical Treatments
30 Giugno 2009 - 5:41PM
Dow Jones News
Cost should be a part of federally funded studies comparing the
benefits of medicines, according to a report released Tuesday by an
influential science advisory board.
The report, written by the Institute of Medicine at the request
of Congress, says studies comparing the benefits of diabetes drugs,
epilepsy medicines and other treatments should include cost. "The
overall value of a strategy can be understood best by considering
costs and benefits together," according to the report, authored by
more than 20 doctors and scientists.
The pharmaceutical industry has been working hard to ensure
"cost" doesn't become an integral part of federally funded research
comparing medical treatments, saying such a move equates to
rationing. They also fear that comparing drugs based on costs may
make patients favor older, cheaper medicines.
The report was done to help the federal government determine
priorities for conducting studies that compare medical treatments.
President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill includes $1.1
billion for such studies.
The report recommends 100 initial priority areas where the
government should fund studies to compare medicines and treatments.
More than 10 of those priority areas include language about
cost.
Among the highest priority recommendations is to study the
effectiveness of biologics in treating Crohn's disease, ulcerative
colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. Biologics
are derived from proteins.
Though no drugs are mentioned by name, drugs that fall into this
category include Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s (BMY) Orencia and
Abbott Laboratories' (ABT) Humira.
Another priority is to research the best treatment for a common
heart-rhythm problem called atrial fibrillation that heightens the
risk of strokes. The disorder is typically managed with drugs, but
there is also a fast-growing market - where Johnson & Johnson
(JNJ), St. Jude Medical Inc. (STJ) and Medtronic Inc. (MDT) are key
players - for attempting to cure the problem with catheters that
burn or freeze tissue.
The report says another priority should be comparing the
"effectiveness and cost-effectiveness" of conventional therapies to
treat type 2 diabetes versus conventional therapies and intensive
educational programs. More than 20 million Americans suffer from
diabetes.
Dr. Brian Strom of the University of Pennsylvania School of
Medicine said comparing medical treatments helps doctors move away
from "trial-and-error" treatments.
Strom, who reviewed the report for the Institute of Medicine,
said it is often difficult for physicians to understand what
treatments work best when there are multiple medicines and
treatment options available.
- Peter Loftus, Jon Kamp and Alicia Mundy contributed to this
report.
- By Jared A. Favole, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9207;
jared.favole@dowjones.com