Comparative Effectiveness Studies Explore Cancer, Trauma Care
To highlight the importance of comparative effectiveness research, the Journal of the American Medical Association partnered with the $3.5 billion Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute on Tuesday to explain three studies in this week's themed issue and discuss the need for more research.
The studies' conclusions help "physicians, other clinicians, policymakers, and patients make informed decisions" about the benefits and harms of the choices available to "prevent, diagnose, treat, or monitor a clinical condition," said Phil Fontanarosa, MD, the JAMA's executive editor.
Avastin and Lung Cancer
One study, in this edition of the journal, for example, upset prevailing wisdom about the benefit of adding a costly drug, bevacizumab, sold under the brand name Avastin, to the standard two-drug cocktail (carboplatin and paclitaxel) for treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Medicare beneficiaries.
The drug was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services after a 2006 trial found that adding it to the regimen provided a statistically significant, albeit slight, survival advantage.
- How Top-Ranked MA Plans Earn Their Stars
- Readmissions: No Quick Fix to Costly Hospital Challenge
- How Hospitals Can Become 'Upstreamists'
- 4 Ways to Lower the Cost to Collect from Self-Pay Patients
- House Calls Key to Pioneer ACO Success
- How Telehealth Pays Off for Providers, Patients
- 4 Tips for Managing Employed Physicians
- Defensive Medicine Still Prevalent Despite Tort Reform
- WellPoint Dominates Nearly Half of Markets, AMA Says
- 'Overtreatment' Debate Circles Back to Lung Cancer Screening