Drug-Versus-Drug Comparison Studies are Lacking
by Jennifer Bunn, RNPart of President Obama’s health care reform plan is to increase comparative effectiveness research. This type of research can reduce health care costs by determining the most effective medications to treat certain conditions, as well as comparing drug therapy against other forms of treatment to determine which is best. This type of research is aimed at finding the most cost-effective treatments available.
Generally, pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in funding studies that show that the drug they supply is better than a drug from another rival company. Billions of dollars are spent on researching new drugs that will earn pharmaceutical companies millions in revenues, but drug companies are less interested in funding research that may not show their product in a favorable light.
Non-commercial and government entities support most of these comparative studies; 1.1 billion dollars was earmarked by Congress last year to fund comparative effectiveness studies as part of the government’s stimulus program. It has been suggested that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should demand these studies from drug companies before granting approval of new drugs. At this point in time, this is not a requirement for gaining approval status for new medications.
Many new medications are not necessarily better but may be more expensive, a fact that is sometimes forgotten in the hype and media blitz that often occurs with the release of a new drug. People are lulled into a sense of security and may be unaware that the expensive new drug that has been hailed as the “wonder drug” of the month may not be any more effective that the “old” one that did virtually the same thing.
Is it any wonder that many cannot afford their medications? Comparative effectiveness research may be one tool in the arsenal of health care reform that can help to reduce the runaway costs of prescription drugs.
Source: Few U.S. studies compare one drug to another: report
