Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research

Views from Diverse Constituencies

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

Fig. 1
Fig.2

Notes

  1. 1.

    See page 951 of Hochman and McCormick,[18] which also cites to the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research report to the President and Congress.[3]

  2. 2.

    As discussed by Garrison[19] in this special issue, a public good is not diminished by others’ use and no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.

  3. 3.

    The COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial demonstrated a lack of reduced risk of death or cardiovascular events from adding percutaneous coronary intervention to medical therapy.[28]

  4. 4.

    A search of the US National Guideline Clearinghouse identified over 2400 ‘evidence-based clinical practiceguidelines’[33].

References

  1. 1.

    US Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: issues and options for an expanded federal role [pub. no. 2975]. Washington, DC: US Congress, Congressional Budget Office, 2007 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8891/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf [Accessed 2009 Apr 7]

  2. 2.

    Institute of Medicine. Learning what works best: the nation’s need for evidence of comparative effectiveness in health care. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2007 Sep

  3. 3.

    Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and Congress, June 30, 2009. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 Jun

  4. 4.

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th Cong

  5. 5.

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, HR3590, 111th Cong

  6. 6.

    United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Development ofmedical technology: opportunities for assessment [online]. Available from URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1976/7617/7617.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr]

  7. 7.

    Banta D, Jonsson E. History of HTA: introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009 Jul; 25 Suppl. 1: 1–6

  8. 8.

    Greene JA. Swimming upstream: comparative effectiveness research in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (12): 979–82

  9. 9.

    Garrison Jr LP, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, et al. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR real-world data task force report. Value Health 2007; 10: 326–35

  10. 10.

    Basu A, Philipson TJ. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending [working paper 15633]. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010 Jan

  11. 11.

    Volpp KG, Das A. Comparative effectiveness: thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N Engl J Med 2009 Jul 23; 361 (4): 331–3

  12. 12.

    Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, et al., editors. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009

  13. 13.

    Lau DC, Douketis JD, Morrison KM, et al., Obesity Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Panel. 2006 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on the management and prevention of obesity in adults and children [summary]. CMAJ 2007; 176 (8): 1103–6

  14. 14.

    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. besity guidance on the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and children. 2006 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG43NICEGuideline.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 13]

  15. 15.

    Snow V, Barry P, Fitterman N, et al. Pharmacologic and surgical management of obesity in primary care: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2005 Apr 5; 142 (7): 525–31

  16. 16.

    Urbach D, Morris A. Health care reform and comparative effectiveness implications for surgeons. Arch Surg 2010; 145 (2): 120–2

  17. 17.

    Weinstein M, Skinner J. Comparative effectiveness and health care spending: implications for reform. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (5): 460–5

  18. 18.

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

  19. 19.

    Garrison Jr LP. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows? Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 855–65

  20. 20.

    Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, et al. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 813–30

  21. 21.

    Chalkidou K, Walley T. Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK NHS: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 799–811

  22. 22.

    Kamae I. Value-based approaches to healthcare systems and pharmacoeconomics requirements in Asia: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Japan. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 831–8

  23. 23.

    Birnbaum H, Slutsky J. Guiding comparative effectiveness research - a US perspective: an interview between Howard Birnbaum (of Analysis Group, Inc., and guest co-editor of this special issue) and Jean R. Slutsky (Director, Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) [interview]. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 839–42

  24. 24.

    Neumann PJ. Lessons for health technology assessment: it is not only about the evidence. Value Health 2009 Jun; 12 Suppl. 2: S45–8

  25. 25.

    Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL. Identifying and eliminating the roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. Epub 2010 Jun 2 [online]. Available from URL: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp1001201v1 [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  26. 26.

    Alexander GC, Stafford RS. Does comparative effectiveness have a comparative edge? JAMA 2009; 301 (23): 2488–90

  27. 27.

    Winstein K. A simple health-care fix fizzles out. Wall Street J 2010 Feb 11 [online]. Available from URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652401818092212.html [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  28. 28.

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

  29. 29.

    Zwelling LA. ‘Comparative effectiveness’ research is always behind the curve. Wall Street J 2010 Mar 15 [online]. Available from URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109980862045168.html [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  30. 30.

    Gawande A. The cost conundrum: what a Texas town can teach us about health care. New Yorker 2009 Jun 1 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  31. 31.

    Fisher E, Goodman D, Skinner J, et al. Health care spending, quality, and outcomes: more isn’t always better. Lebanon (NH): Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 2009 Feb 27 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Spending_Brief_022709.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  32. 32.

    Kassirer JP, Wong JB. Comparative effectiveness research and the psychology of medical practice: the vicissitudes of knowledge implementation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 899–903

  33. 33.

    US National Guideline Clearinghouse [online]. Available from URL: http://www.guideline.gov [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  34. 34.

    Berger ML, Grainer D. Comparative effectiveness research: the view from a pharmaceutical company. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 915–22

  35. 35.

    Thomas A, Philips A, Donnelly R, et al. Comparative effectiveness, personalized medicine and innovation: the path forward. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 923–30

  36. 36.

    Epstein RS, Teagarden JR. Comparative effectiveness research and personalized medicine: catalyzing or colliding? Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 905–13

  37. 37.

    Cahill J, Learner N. Managed care pharmacy sees potential of comparative effectiveness research to improve patient care and lower costs. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 931–4

  38. 38.

    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising treatments which may extend life, at the end of life [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/endoflifetreatments.jsp [Accessed 2010 Jun 18]

  39. 39.

    Vernon JA, Golec JH, Stevens JS. Comparative effectiveness regulations and pharmaceutical innovation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 877–87

  40. 40.

    Epstein RS, Moyer TP, Aubert RE, et al. Warfarin genotyping reduces hospitalization rates: results from the MMWES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness Study). J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 2804–12

  41. 41.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) class labeling changes to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix): KRAS Mutations [media release]. 2009 Jul 17 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm172905.htm [Accessed 2010 Jul 20]

  42. 42.

    Culyer AJ. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research: the relative unimportance of mere preferences, the central importance of context. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 889–97

  43. 43.

    Cutler DM, Ericson KMM. Cost-effectiveness analysis in markets with high fixed costs. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 867–75

  44. 44.

    Meltzer D, Basu A, Conti R. The economics of comparative effectiveness studies: societal and private perspectives and their implications for prioritizing public investments in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 843–53

  45. 45.

    Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry. Diabetes mellitus: evaluating cardiovascular risk in new anti-diabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes. 2008 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071627.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jul 20]

  46. 46.

    Crown WH. There’s a reason they call them dummy variables: a note on the use of structural equation techniques in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 947–55

  47. 47.

    Caro JJ, Ishak KJ. No head-to-head trial? Simulate the missing arms. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 957–67

  48. 48.

    Mullins CD, Whicher D, Reese ES, et al. Generating evidence for comparative effectiveness research using more pragmatic randomized controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 969–76

  49. 49.

    Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (10): 935–45

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this article was provided by Analysis Group, Inc. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Correspondence to Dr Dave Nellesen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nellesen, D., Birnbaum, H.G. & Greenberg, P.E. Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Pharmacoeconomics 28, 789–798 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11535790-000000000-00000

Download citation