Home › Research › Clinical trials
Economic evaluations during early (phase II) drug development: a role for clinical trial simulations?
D A Hughes, T Walley. PharmacoEconomics, 2001
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Faced with increasing demands on demonstrating cost effectiveness, pharmaceutical companies are required to conduct pharmacoeconomic evaluations throughout the drug development programme. At present, there is particular emphasis in the literature on burden-of-illness studies and on economic evaluations conducted alongside phase III clinical trials but not on those conducted during phase II clinical trials. This article describes modelling techniques, namely clinical trial simulations (CTS), which are gaining popularity in the clinical research community, but which might also prove to be beneficial during the conduct of these early pharmacoeconomic evaluations. The basic concepts and structure of CTS are described by using published examples of simulations of antipsychotic and anticancer drugs. With the use of an illustrative example of a hypothetical cholinesterase inhibitor for Alzheimer's disease, an integrated CTS-based pharmacoeconomic evaluation is presented. The results demonstrate how the modelling may be of value in 'go/no-go' decisions during the drug development programme.
Key findings
- The results demonstrate how the modelling may be of value in 'go/no-go' decisions during the drug development programme.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PharmacoEconomics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11735674) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 21 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Hughes, D. A., & Walley, T. (2001). Economic evaluations during early (phase II) drug development: a role for clinical trial simulations? PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119110-00001
Vancouver
Hughes DA, Walley T. Economic evaluations during early (phase II) drug development: a role for clinical trial simulations? PharmacoEconomics. 2001. doi:10.2165/00019053-200119110-00001. PMID: 11735674.
BibTeX
@article{hughes2001-11735674,
author = {Hughes, D A and Walley, T},
title = {{Economic evaluations during early (phase II) drug development: a role for clinical trial simulations?}},
journal = {PharmacoEconomics},
year = {2001},
doi = {10.2165/00019053-200119110-00001},
pmid = {11735674},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119110-00001}
}
Related studies in Clinical trials
Also tagged “cholinesterase”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.