Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure†
Corresponding Author
Sean R. Tunis
Center for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Baltimore, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
Center for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Baltimore, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD 21201, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorJoshua Benner
Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Search for more papers by this authorMark McClellan
Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Sean R. Tunis
Center for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Baltimore, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
Center for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Baltimore, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD 21201, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorJoshua Benner
Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Search for more papers by this authorMark McClellan
Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Search for more papers by this authorThis article was published online on 16 June 2010. An error was subsequently identified. This notice is included in the online and print versions to indicate that both have been corrected on 28 July 2010.
Abstract
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has received substantial attention as a potential approach for improving health outcomes while lowering costs of care, and for improving the relevance and quality of clinical and health services research. The Institute of Medicine defines CER as ‘the conduct and synthesis of systematic research comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions. The purpose of this research is to inform patients, providers, and decision-makers, responding to their expressed needs, about which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.’ Improving the methods and infrastructure for CER will require sustained attention to the following issues: (1) Meaningful involvement of patients, consumers, clinicians, payers, and policymakers in key phases of CER study design and implementation; (2) Development of methodological ‘best practices’ for the design of CER studies that reflect decision-maker needs and balance internal validity with relevance, feasibility and timeliness; and (3) Improvements in research infrastructure to enhance the validity and efficiency with which CER studies are implemented. The approach to addressing each of these issues should be informed by the understanding that the primary purpose of CER is to help health care decision makers make informed clinical and health policy decisions. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References
- 1 Schoen C, Davis K, How SK, Schoenbaum SC. U.S. health system performance: a national scorecard. Health Affairs 2006; 25(6): w457–w475.
- 2 Sisko A, Truffer C, Smith S, Keehan S, Cylus J, Poisal JA, Clemens MK, Lizonitz J. Health spending projections through 2018: recession effects add uncertainty to the outlook. Health Affairs 2009; 28(2): w346–w357.
- 3 Congressional Budget Office. Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending, January 2008. Available from: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8947/01-31-TechHealth.pdf Accessed 20 September 2009.
- 4 Congressional Budget Office. The Long-Term Outlook for Health Care Spending, November 2007. Available from: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/11-13-LT-Health.pdf Accessed 20 September 2009.
- 5 Institute of Medicine. Learning What Works Best: The Nation's Need for Evidence on Comparative Effectiveness in Health Care, National Academies, September 2007. Available from: http://www.iom.edu/∼/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Quality/VSRT/ComparativeEffectivenessWhitePaperESF.ashx. Accessed 1 July 2008.
- 6 Moses H, Dorsey ER, Matheson DHM, Their SO. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 2005; 294(11): 1333–1342.
- 7 AcademyHealth, Placement, Coordination, and Funding of Health Services Research within the Federal Government. AcademyHealth Report, 9 September 2005. Available from: http://www.academyhealth.org/files/publications/placementreport.pdf Accessed 13 October 2009.
- 8 Department of Health and Human Services. Draft Definition of Comparative Effectiveness Research for the Federal Coordinating Council. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/draftdefinition.html. Accessed 29 May 2009.
- 9 Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research, 30 June 2009. Available from: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/63608/71025.aspx. Accessed 13 October 2009.
- 10 Orszag PR. Health costs are the real deficit threat. Wall Street Journal 15 May 2009. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234365947221489.html. Accessed 29 May 2009.
- 11 Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepi and Drug Safety 2006; 15(5): 291–303.
- 12 Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Strümer T, Brookhart MA, Avorn J, Maclure M, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Medical Care 2007; 45(Suppl 2): S131–S142.
- 13 Institute of Medicine. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2 April 2007.
- 14 Tunis SR. A clinical research strategy for shared decision making. Health Affairs 2005; 24(1): 180–184.
- 15 United States Cochrane Center. Consumers United for Evidence-Based Healthcare (CUE). Available from: http://apps1.jhsph.edu/cochrane/uscccc.htm. Accessed 13 October 2009.
- 16 Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L, Stine SH, Coleman RE. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the national oncologic PET registry. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008; 26(13): 2155–2161.
- 17 Levine MN, Julian JA. Registries that show efficacy: good, but not good enough. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008; 26(33): 5335–5343.
- 18 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Solid Tumors (CAG-00181R), 3 April 2009. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo.asp?from2=viewdecisionmemo.asp&id=218& Accessed 10 May 2009.
- 19 Ontario PET Steering Committee. PET Scan Primer: A Guide to the implementation of Positron Emission Tomography in Ontario. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, 31 August 2008. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/outofcountry/pdf/pet_scan_primer.pdf Accessed 25 May 2009.
- 20 Rawlins M. De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet 2008; 372: 2152–2161.
- 21 Atkins D. Creating and synthesizing evidence with decision makers in mind: Integrating evidence from clinical trials and other study designs. Medical Care 2007; 45(10): S16–S22.
- 22 Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62: 464–475.
- 23 Davis BR, Cutler JA, Gordon DJ, Furberg CD, Wright Jr JT, Cushman WC, Grimm RH, LaRosa J, Whelton PK, Perry HM, Alderman MH, Ford CE, Oparil S, Francis C, Proschan M, Pressel S, Black HR, Hawkins CM. Rationale and design for the antihypertensive and lipid lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). ALLHAT Research Group. American Journal of Hypertension 1996; 9: 342–360.
- 24 Lando HA, McGovern PG, Barrios FX, Etringer BD. Comparative evaluation of American Cancer Society and American Lung Association smoking cessation clinics. American Journal of Public Health 1990; 80(5): 554–559.
- 25 Zhou X, Liu S, Kim ES, Herbst RS, Lee JJ. Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer—a step toward personalized medicine. Clinical Trials 2008; 5(3): 181–193.
- 26 Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R. N-of-1 randomized trials-where do we stand? Western Journal of Medicine 1990; 152(1): 67–68.
- 27 Guyatt GH, Keller JL, Jaeschke R, Rosenbloom D, Adachi JD, Newhouse MT. The n-of-1 randomized controlled trial: clinical usefulness. Our three-year experience. Annals of Internal Medicine 1990; 112(4): 293–299.
- 28 Maclure M, Carleton B, Schneeweiss S. Designed delays versus rigorous pragmatic trials: lower carat gold standards can produce relevant drug evaluations. Medical Care 2007; 45(10): S44–S49.
- 29 Clarke CE. Are delayed-start design trials to show neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease fundamentally flawed? Movement Disorders 2008; 23(6): 784–789.
- 30 Parkinson Study Group. A controlled, randomized, delayed-start study of rasagiline in early Parkinson disease. Archives of Neurology 2004; 61: 561–566.
- 31 EQUATOR Network. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/. Accessed 25 May 2009.
- 32 RE Gliklich, NA Dreyer (eds), Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide. (Prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc. dba Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA29020050035ITO1.). In AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC001-1, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2007.
- 33 Nebeker JR, Yarnold PR, Soltysik RC, Sauer BC, Sims SA, Samore MH, Rupper RW, Swanson KM, Savitz LA, Shinogle J, Xu W. Developing indicators of inpatient adverse drug events through nonlinear analysis using administrative data. Medical Care 2007; 45: S81–S88.
- 34 Rubin DB. For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Annals of Applied Statistics 2008; 2(3): 808–840.
- 35 Califf RM. Issues facing clinical trials of the future. Journal of Internal Medicine 2003; 254: 426–433.
- 36 Hormone Therapy Woes. The New York Times, 11 July 2002. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/opinion/hormone-therapy-woes.html?scp=3&sq=hormone%20replacement%20therapy%20saga&st=cse&pagewanted=print Accessed 25 May 2009.
- 37 Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Medical Care 2007; 45: S143–S148.
- 38 Curtis LH, Hammill BG, Eisenstein EL, Kramer JM, Anstrom KJ. Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses with observational databases. Medical Care 2007; 45: S103–S107.
- 39 McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infraction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. Journal of American Medical Association 1994; 272(11): 859–866.
- 40 Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Wang PS, Dormuth C, Mogun H, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating the validity of an instrumental variable study of neuroleptics: can between-physician differences in prescribing patterns be used to estimate treatment effects? Medical Care 2007; 45: S116–S122.
- 41 Stürmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S. Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information. Medical Care 2007; 45: S158–S165.
- 42 Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Performance of propensity score calibration—a simulation study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 165(10): 1110–1118.
- 43 Food and Drug Administration. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Guidance for Industry: Chronic Cutaneous Ulcer and Burn Wounds—Developing Products for Treatment. Updated 1 June 2006. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071324.pdf. Accessed 18 February 2009.
- 44 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Computed Tomographic Angiography (CAG-00385N), 12 March 2008. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MCD/viewdecisionmemo.asp?id=206. Accessed 14 April 2009.
- 45 Douglas PS, Budoff M, Tunis S, Woodard PK, Justman RA, Honigberg R. A new era for cardiovascular imaging? Implications of the revoked national coverage decision for CT angiography on future imaging reimbursement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology Imaging 2008; 1: 398–403.
- 46 Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 360(19): 1925–1927.
- 47 Greenfield S, Kravitz R, Duan N, Kaplan SH. Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. American Journal of Medicine 2007; 120(4): S3–S9.
- 48 Collins R, Peto R, Baigent C, Sleight P. Aspirin, heparin, and fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336(12): 847–860.
- 49 MS Donaldson, KD Yordy, KN Lohr, NA Vanselow (eds) ( Committee on the Future of Primary Care, Institute of Medicine). Primary Care: America's Health in a New Era. The National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996; 231.
- 50 Durako S. Inventory and evaluation of clinical research networks, IECRN. Best Practices Study Report, July 2006; 2–65. Available from: http://www.clinicalresearchnetworks.org/documents/BPReport.pdf Accessed 1 June 2009.
- 51 Institute of Medicine. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009.