Internet-based clinical trial technology has aided the ability for sponsor companies to easily access their study data throughout the conduct of their trials. Although the industry has been slower than most to adopt technology, the benefits are clear and as a result, adoption is gaining momentum.
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can be a powerful tool to justify premium pricing in a competitive market or one that is likely to become more competitive. CER provides effective tools that can help differentiate treatments and, in turn, better inform decisions. Now that the US, in particular, is moving aggressively toward CER as part of payer coverage policy considerations, its global importance as a decision tool is greater than ever. Below we show via a specific example how CER was used innovatively to differentiate between two hemophilia treatments.
According to a group of European drug-makers, Chinese patients are being denied innovative new medicines because of continued problems with the country’s clinical trial process. Compared to a 60-day approval timeline for clinical trials in Europe, China has an excessive nine to 12 month waiting period before approval is even sniffed at, with a lag of at least two years between drug registration when comparing the two regions, as reported by the European Chamber of Commerce in China (EUCCC) in Beijing this year.