Tying comparative effectiveness information to decision-making and the future of comparative effectiveness research designs: The case for antipsychotic drugs

Anirban Basu*, Herbert Y. Meltzer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The outcome of comparative effectiveness research on antipsychotic drugs, specifically the National Institute of Mental Health-funded CATIE trial, has raised questions regarding the value of second-generation antipsychotic drugs and has sparked a debate regarding their accessibility through public insurance. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of access restrictions for antipsychotic drugs in Medicaid programs and found that such restrictions resulted in increases in overall costs and a possible decline in the quality of care. We attribute this unwanted outcome to limitations in comparative effectiveness research designs that fail to inform either clinical or policy decision-making. We enumerate these limitations and illustrate the potential for more innovative comparative effectiveness research designs that may be in line with clinical decision-making using an original analysis of the CATIE trial data. The value of genomic information in enabling better trial design is also discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-180
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2012

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Antipsychotic Agents
Decision Making
Research Design
National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)
Quality of Health Care
Policy Making
Medicaid
Insurance
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Medicaid
  • antipsychotic drugs
  • heterogeneity
  • pharmacogenetics
  • prior authorization
  • schizophrenia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

@article{eb904c2fe9f447759a8ec1677fd78ad6,
title = "Tying comparative effectiveness information to decision-making and the future of comparative effectiveness research designs: The case for antipsychotic drugs",
abstract = "The outcome of comparative effectiveness research on antipsychotic drugs, specifically the National Institute of Mental Health-funded CATIE trial, has raised questions regarding the value of second-generation antipsychotic drugs and has sparked a debate regarding their accessibility through public insurance. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of access restrictions for antipsychotic drugs in Medicaid programs and found that such restrictions resulted in increases in overall costs and a possible decline in the quality of care. We attribute this unwanted outcome to limitations in comparative effectiveness research designs that fail to inform either clinical or policy decision-making. We enumerate these limitations and illustrate the potential for more innovative comparative effectiveness research designs that may be in line with clinical decision-making using an original analysis of the CATIE trial data. The value of genomic information in enabling better trial design is also discussed.",
keywords = "Medicaid, antipsychotic drugs, heterogeneity, pharmacogenetics, prior authorization, schizophrenia",
author = "Anirban Basu and Meltzer, {Herbert Y.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2217/cer.12.8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "171--180",
journal = "Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research",
issn = "2042-6305",
publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tying comparative effectiveness information to decision-making and the future of comparative effectiveness research designs

T2 - The case for antipsychotic drugs

AU - Basu, Anirban

AU - Meltzer, Herbert Y.

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - The outcome of comparative effectiveness research on antipsychotic drugs, specifically the National Institute of Mental Health-funded CATIE trial, has raised questions regarding the value of second-generation antipsychotic drugs and has sparked a debate regarding their accessibility through public insurance. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of access restrictions for antipsychotic drugs in Medicaid programs and found that such restrictions resulted in increases in overall costs and a possible decline in the quality of care. We attribute this unwanted outcome to limitations in comparative effectiveness research designs that fail to inform either clinical or policy decision-making. We enumerate these limitations and illustrate the potential for more innovative comparative effectiveness research designs that may be in line with clinical decision-making using an original analysis of the CATIE trial data. The value of genomic information in enabling better trial design is also discussed.

AB - The outcome of comparative effectiveness research on antipsychotic drugs, specifically the National Institute of Mental Health-funded CATIE trial, has raised questions regarding the value of second-generation antipsychotic drugs and has sparked a debate regarding their accessibility through public insurance. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of access restrictions for antipsychotic drugs in Medicaid programs and found that such restrictions resulted in increases in overall costs and a possible decline in the quality of care. We attribute this unwanted outcome to limitations in comparative effectiveness research designs that fail to inform either clinical or policy decision-making. We enumerate these limitations and illustrate the potential for more innovative comparative effectiveness research designs that may be in line with clinical decision-making using an original analysis of the CATIE trial data. The value of genomic information in enabling better trial design is also discussed.

KW - Medicaid

KW - antipsychotic drugs

KW - heterogeneity

KW - pharmacogenetics

KW - prior authorization

KW - schizophrenia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886945038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886945038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/cer.12.8

DO - 10.2217/cer.12.8

M3 - Review article

C2 - 24237376

AN - SCOPUS:84886945038

VL - 1

SP - 171

EP - 180

JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

SN - 2042-6305

IS - 2

ER -