Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Rise of Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
An Introduction to Health Policy

  • 2006 Accesses

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) refers to research aimed at determining which of multiple health care services – including diagnostic tests, treatments, public health programs, or other health care delivery strategies – is best. In 2009 and 2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded governmental funding for CER in the USA by creating the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The PCORI plans to prioritize research aimed at helping patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders make more informed decisions in “real-world” situations, a goal that will likely require an emphasis on less traditional research methods that are more representative of typical clinical practice such as pragmatic trials and observational research. The new funds should provide a much-needed boost to CER, however several challenges loom. In addition to promoting research that is both valid and relevant in “real-world” situations, the PCORI will need to find more effective ways to ensure that CER findings are disseminated and implemented in clinical practice. The latter task may be particularly challenging since the ACA places limits on the use of CER findings for decisions related to “payment, coverage, or treatment.” In addition, the ACA limits the PCORI from supporting cost-effectiveness research, which stakeholders might use to allocate health care resources most efficiently.

Note: Several paragraphs of this chapter have been adapted with consent of the publisher from Hochman M, McCormick D. Comparative Effectiveness Research. In Kronenfeld J, Parmet W, Zezza M (eds): Debates on U.S. Health Care. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2012

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Borden WB, Redberg RF, Mushlin AI, Dai D, Kaltenbach LA, Spertus JA. Patterns and intensity of medical therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;305:1882–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, Sullivan SD. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):256–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Hodder Arnold Publishers; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, Jackson RD, Beresford SA, Howard BV, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, Ockene J, Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Beech BM, Goodman M. Race & research: perspectives on minority participation in health studies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JP. Medicine. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science. 2008;321(5894):1298–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. American College of Physicians. Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):956–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hochman M, McCormick D. Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. JAMA. 2010;303(10):951–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hochman M, McCormick D. Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(11):1246–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong JH, Wolmark N. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD, McManus K, Champagne CM, Bishop LM, Laranjo N, Leboff MS, Rood JC, de Jonge L, Greenway FL, Loria CM, Obarzanek E, Williamson DA. Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:859–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288(23):2981–97.

    Google Scholar 

  18. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub. L. No. 111–5, (Feb. 17, 2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci Trans Med. 2010;2(37):37cm18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290(12):1624–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, Gaziano JM, Aslan M, Huang GD. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123(12 suppl 1):e16–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, Chung M, Varvarigou V, Jafri H, Rassen JA, Trikalinos TA, Kitsios GD. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1636–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine. Learning what works best: the nation’s need for evidence of comparative effectiveness in healthcare. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pollack A. The evidence gap: the minimal impact of a big hypertension study. The NewYork Times. 2008 Nov 28.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chalkidou K. Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009;59:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kerr DJ, Scott M. British lessons on health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):e21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Brook RH. Possible outcomes of comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2009;302(2):194–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med. 2009;360(19):1925–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Szabo L. FDA approves $93K prostate cancer vaccine. USA Today. 2010 Apr 30. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-04-30-prostatevaccine30_ST_N.htm

  32. Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(16):1495–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Walley T. Translating comparative effectiveness research into clinical practice: the UK experience. Drugs. 2012;72(2):163–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1805–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chernew ME, Baicker K, Hsu J. The specter of financial armageddon – health care and federal debt in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1166–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AltaMed Health Services, 2040 Camfield Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90040, USA

    Michael Hochman M.D.

  2. Chief of Social and Community Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard University Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Danny McCormick M.D., M.P.H

Authors
  1. Michael Hochman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danny McCormick M.D., M.P.H
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Hochman M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilit Division of Trauma, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Orthopaedic Surgery, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Manish K. Sethi

  2. Vanderbilt School of Medicine Department of Cardiac Surgery, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    William H. Frist

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hochman, M., McCormick, D. (2013). The Rise of Comparative Effectiveness Research. In: Sethi, M., Frist, W. (eds) An Introduction to Health Policy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7735-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7735-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7734-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7735-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation