Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National Approaches to Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services

Part of the book series: Health Services Research ((HEALTHSR))

  • 940 Accesses

Abstract

Recently, comparative effectiveness research (CER) has received considerable attention in the United States. This type of research has been underway in various settings for some time – most commonly as inputs to formal health technology assessment processes used to determine the medical, social, economic, and ethical issues related to the use of a health technology. As it is conceived in the United States, CER goes beyond health technology assessment and encompasses research efforts that aim to encourage health-care decision-making to be increasingly based on comparative evidence on clinical and humanistic patient-centered outcomes at both the individual and population levels. This chapter reviews the national approaches to conducting CER across various European countries in addition to Australia and Canada. Adopting an emerging United States-centric definition of CER, which focuses on clinical evidence, this chapter outlines the similarities and differences across settings in terms of how CER evidence is generated and synthesized and how it contributes to decision-making.

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 279.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Ades AE. ISPOR states its position on network meta-analysis. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):414–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ades AE, Madan J, Welton NJ. Indirect and mixed treatment comparisons in arthritis research. Rheumatology. 2011;50 Suppl 4:iv5–9. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ker241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander GC, Stafford RS. Does comparative effectiveness have a comparative edge? JAMA. 2009;301(23):2488–90. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.851. [pii] 301/23/2488.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bensing J. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(1):17–25. doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(99)00087-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berwick DM. A user’s manual for the IOM’s ‘Quality Chasm’ report. Health Aff. 2002;21(3):80–90. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.3.80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):382–5. 10.1056/NEJMp0912825.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boggild M, Palace J, Barton P, Ben-Shlomo Y, Bregenzer T, Dobson C, Gray R. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator. BMJ. 2009;339. doi:10.1136/bmj.b4677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges JFP, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(01):30–5. doi:10.1017/S0266462307051549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897–900. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Health Economics. Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies. York: University of York; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, Rochaix L, Sawicki PT, Nasser M, Xerri B. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):339–67. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00560.x. [pii] MILQ560.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chokshi DA, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Designing comparative effectiveness research on prescription drugs: lessons from the clinical trial literature. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1842–8. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0843. [pii] 29/10/1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer NA, Tunis SR, Berger M, Ollendorf D, Mattox P, Gliklich R. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1818–25. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edling A, Stenberg AM. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFNAR 2003:2). Solna: Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN); 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Abadie E, Barnett D, Konig F, Pearson S. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(4):277–91. doi:10.1038/nrd3079. [pii] nrd3079.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eichler HG, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Flamion B, Gustafsson LL, Leufkens H, …, Bloechl-Daum B. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator’s perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(7):495–506. doi:10.1038/nrd3501. [pii] nrd3501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein RM, Fiscella K, Lesser CS, Stange KC. Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Aff. 2010;29(8):1489–95. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency. Note for guidance on choice of control group in clinical trials. London: European Medicines Agency; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Patients’ Forum. Patient involvement in health technology assessment in Europe: an interim report on EPF’s survey with HTA agencies. Brussels: European Patients’ Forum; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, Single A. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(03):334–40. doi:10.1017/S0266462310000395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falissard B, Izard V, Xerri B, Bouvenot G, Meyer F, Degos L. Relative effectiveness assessment of listed drugs (REAL): a new method for an early comparison of the effectiveness of approved health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):124–30. doi:10.1017/s0266462309990821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurence RL, Naci H, Jansen JP. The critical role of observational evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1826–33. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauvin F-P, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. “It all depends”: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1518–26. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haute Autorité de Santé. General method for assessing health technologies. Paris: Department of Medical and Surgical Procedures Assessment; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, …, Barrett A. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011

    Google Scholar 

  • Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research – IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):325–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0904133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. Cologne: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). General methods. Cologne: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. Standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA resources. 2012. Retrieved 28 Aug 2012 from www.inahta.net

  • Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181(8):488–93. doi:10.1503/cmaj.081086. [pii] cmaj.081086.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health. 2008;11(5):956–64. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00347.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, …, Cappelleri JC. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002. [pii] S1098-3015(11)01404-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JP, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):798–807. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.002. [pii] S0895-4356(12)00003-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiely PD, Deighton C, Dixey J, Ostor AJ. Biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis–negotiating the NICE technology appraisals. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51(1):24–31. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ker321.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen S1, George E, Goulden S, d’Andon A, Vitré P, Osińska B, Rdzany R, Thirstrup S, Corbacho B, Nagy BZ, Leufkens HG, de Boer A, Goettsch WG. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):954–60. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.010. Epub 2012 Jun 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, Harrigan B, Briggs AH. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):813–30. doi:10.2165/11536150-000000000-00000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K. Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med. 2011;9:79. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-79. [pii] 1741-7015-9-79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24. doi:10.1002/sim.1875.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):206–9. [pii] 0000605-200908040-00126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, Sullivan SD. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):256–76. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00598.x. [pii] MILQ598.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Luce BR, Frank L, Coyne KS, Wrywich KW. Eliciting patient-centered outcomes: determining the relative strenghts, challenges, and opportunities of six common research designs. 2012. Retrieved 28 Aug 2012 from http://www.ispor.org/meetings/WashingtonDC0512/releasedpresentations/W2-All-Slides.pdf

  • Mavridis D, Salanti G. A practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012. doi:10.1177/0962280211432219. [pii] 0962280211432219.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins C, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC. Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307(15):1587–8. 10.1001/jama.2012.442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Naci, Huseyin. The increasing need to harmonize evidence demands of regulators, payers, and health technology assessment bodies in Europe – opportunities and challenges. Ispor Connections. 2011;17(4). pp. 4–6. ISSN 1538–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Naci H, Fleurence R. Using indirect evidence to determine the comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs: do benefits outweigh risks? Health Outcomes Res Med. 2011;2(4):e241–9. doi:10.1016/j.ehrm.2011.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naci H, Cylus J, Vandoros S, Sato A, Perampaladas K. Raising the bar for market authorisation of new drugs. BMJ. 2012;345. doi:10.1136/bmj.e4261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(16):1495–7. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1007168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor AB. Building comparative efficacy and tolerability into the FDA approval process. JAMA. 2010;303(10):979–80. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.257. [pii] 303/10/979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson SD, Bach PB. How medicare could use comparative effectiveness research in deciding on new coverage and reimbursement. Health Aff. 2010;29(10):1796–804. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Aging; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raftery J. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ. 2010;340. 10.1136/bmj.c1672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins MD. NICE work – providing guidance to the British National Health Service. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(14):1383–5. doi:10.1056/NEJMp048221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roland M, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316(7127):285. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7127.285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8. [pii] S0140-6736(04)17670-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–1. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7436.360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17(3):279–301. doi:10.1177/0962280207080643. [pii] 0962280207080643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The patient-centered outcomes research institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307(15):1583–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials: why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ. 1998;316(7126):201. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7126.201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Song F, Altman DG, Glenny A-M, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;326(7387):472. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7387.472.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338. doi:10.1136/bmj.b1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, …, Altman DG. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2011;343. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson C. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. New York: Commonwealth Fund; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson C, Chalkidou K. Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7(1):25–45. doi:10.1017/S1744133111000296. [pii] S1744133111000296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson C, Naci H, Cylus J, Mossialos E. Evidence of comparative efficacy should have a formal role in European drug approvals. BMJ. 2011;343. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sox HC. Comparative effectiveness research: a progress report. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(7):469–72. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-7-201010050-00269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sox HC, Goodman SN. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2012;33:425–45. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford RS, Wagner TH, Lavori PW. New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):1230–3. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0906490.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbrook R. Saying no isn’t NICE – the travails of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. New Engl J Med. 2008;359(19):1977–81. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0806862.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan P, Goldmann D. The promise of comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2011;305(4):400–1. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.12. [pii] 305/4/400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tinetti ME, Studenski SA. Comparative effectiveness research and patients with multiple chronic conditions. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2478–81. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1100535.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1001/jama.290.12.1624. [pii] 290/12/1624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC. Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(11):970–3. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1000096.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volpp KG, Das A. Comparative effectiveness – thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):331–3. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0903496.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LSE Health and Social Care, London School of Economics and Political Science, Cowdray House, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK

    Huseyin Naci

  2. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, York, UK

    Eldon Spackman

Authors
  1. Huseyin Naci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eldon Spackman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huseyin Naci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dalhousie University, Community Health & Epidemiology, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    Adrian Levy

  2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Boris Sobolev

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Naci, H., Spackman, E. (2016). National Approaches to Comparative Effectiveness Research. In: Levy, A., Sobolev, B. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services. Health Services Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7600-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7600-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7599-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7600-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation