IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v29y2020i2p185-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When ignorance is bliss: Intentional agnosticism in drug approval

Author

Listed:
  • Valentyn Litvin

Abstract

In developed nations, public health agencies typically use data from randomized controlled trials to evaluate new drugs. However, these trials routinely exclude populations to which clinicians prescribe approved drugs, meaning some patients are treated with drugs, which were approved on the basis of another group's treatment response. Despite having opportunities to change, some health agencies have not mandated greater inclusion in drug trials and appear to prefer remaining ignorant of some populations' treatment effects when approving a drug. To explore this decision, I introduce a novel mechanism by which a health agency would choose to be intentionally agnostic regarding a population's treatment response. The main contribution of this paper is in showing how ambiguity about on‐label and off‐label prescription rates could possibly encourage population exclusion in drug approval trials even in the absence of concerns about trial necessity or cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentyn Litvin, 2020. "When ignorance is bliss: Intentional agnosticism in drug approval," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 185-194, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:29:y:2020:i:2:p:185-194
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3964
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3964?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    2. Herrera, A.P. & Snipes, S.A. & King, D.W. & Torres-Vigil, I. & Goldberg, D.S. & Wenberg, A.D., 2010. "Disparate inclusion of older adults in clinical trials: priorities and opportunities for policy and practice change," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(S1), pages 105-112.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Response to commentaries on “Reasonable patient care under uncertainty”," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1431-1434, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles F. Manski, 2022. "Patient‐centered appraisal of race‐free clinical risk assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2109-2114, October.
    2. Per Magnus Mæhle & Ingrid Kristine Small Hanto & Sigbjørn Smeland, 2020. "Practicing Integrated Care Pathways in Norwegian Hospitals: Coordination through Industrialized Standardization, Value Chains, and Quality Management or an Organizational Equivalent to Improvised Jazz," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2023. "Using Limited Trial Evidence to Credibly Choose Treatment Dosage when Efficacy and Adverse Effects Weakly Increase with Dose," NBER Working Papers 31305, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. John Mullahy, 2018. "Treatment Effects with Multiple Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 25307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Anirban Basu, 2018. "Comment: Manski's views on patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1422-1424, October.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2018. "Comment: Decentralized decision making through adaptive minimax regret—Complex yet intuitively appealing," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1428-1430, October.
    7. David Epstein, 2019. "Beyond the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve: The appropriateness of rank probabilities for presenting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 801-807, June.
    8. Andrews, Brendon P., 2023. "Economic Evaluation under Ambiguity and Structural Uncertainties," Working Papers 2023-9, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    9. Amanda Dahlstrand, 2022. "Defying distance? The provision of services in the digital age," CEP Discussion Papers dp1889, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    10. John Mullahy, 2021. "Discovering treatment effectiveness via median treatment effects—Applications to COVID‐19 clinical trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1050-1069, May.
    11. Juerg Schweri, 2021. "Predicting polytomous career choices in healthcare using probabilistic expectations data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 544-563, March.
    12. Luca Panzone & Guy Garrod & Felice Adinolfi & Jorgelina Di Pasquale, 2022. "Molecular marketing, personalised information and willingness‐to‐pay for functional foods: Vitamin D enriched eggs," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 666-689, September.
    13. Dahlstrand Rudin, Amanda, 2022. "Defying distance? The provision of services in the digital age," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118042, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Divyanshu Raheja & Evelyn P. Davila & Eric T. Johnson & Rijalda Deović & Michele Paine & Nadine Rouphael, 2018. "Willingness to Participate in Vaccine-Related Clinical Trials among Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Jesse M. Bell & Tina M. Mason & Harleah G. Buck & Cindy S. Tofthagen & Allyson R. Duffy & Maureen W. Groër & James P. McHale & Kevin E. Kip, 2021. "Challenges in Obtaining and Assessing Salivary Cortisol and α-Amylase in an Over 60 Population Undergoing Psychotherapeutic Treatment for Complicated Grief: Lessons Learned," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 30(5), pages 680-689, June.
    16. Valérie Seegers & Ludovic Trinquart & Isabelle Boutron & Philippe Ravaud, 2013. "Comparison of Treatment Effect Estimates for Pharmacological Randomized Controlled Trials Enrolling Older Adults Only and Those including Adults: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-5, May.
    17. Lorraine Greaves & Andreea C. Brabete & Mira Maximos & Ella Huber & Alice Li & Mê-Linh Lê & Sherif Eltonsy & Madeline Boscoe, 2023. "Sex, Gender, and the Regulation of Prescription Drugs: Omissions and Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, February.
    18. Charles F. Manski, 2019. "Meta-Analysis for Medical Decisions," NBER Working Papers 25504, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:29:y:2020:i:2:p:185-194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.