Translating Comparative Effectiveness Research into Clinical Practice
- 102 Downloads
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is not new but its potential to improve the effectiveness of healthcare has not yet been exploited in the US. Other countries such as the UK have more experience of this. Key points of the UK experience are summarized here and some possible pointers for the US are drawn. These include the following: how to go beyond the evidence and apply judgements to make recommendations with authority and in a timely manner; how to implement these recommendations; how to identify suitable topics; and how to be open and transparently fair to all stakeholders. The quality of the science of CER is key but this needs developing, and not ust in biomedical or statistical terms but also in how to understand public expectations, and how to implement its recommendations.
A key issue is the role of health economics, which seems to have been marginalized by the CER legislation, but perhaps this is more apparent than real. Clearly this is a matter for much further debate. It is hard to see how CER can deliver its potential without active consideration of both benefits and costs.
Although other countries have more experience of this than does the US, the context for such work is always very specific and the US will have to find its own way, while trying to avoid some of the errors made elsewhere.
- 1.American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th CongGoogle Scholar
- 8.Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA methods and processes. London: Office of Health Economics, 2011 MarGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kennedy I. Appraising the value of innovation and other benefits: a short study for NICE. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/98F/5C/KennedyStudyFinalReport.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 20]
- 11.NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hta.ac.uk [Accessed 2011 Dec 28]
- 15.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Claxton K. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development [research in progress; online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/researchanddevelopment/ResearchProjectHealthTechnologies.jsp [Accessed 2011 Sep 22]
- 16.Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. First public meeting of New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (CEPAC) set for Saturday, June 11, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.icer-review.org/index.php/Announcements/cepacjune11.html [Accessed 2011 Sep 17]
- 17.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Funding opportunities [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/ [Accessed 2011 Sep 22]
- 18.The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. Use of NICE-appraised medicines in the NHS in England — 2009, experimental statistics. London: NHS Information Centre, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/007_Primary_Care/niceappmed0910/NICE_bulletin_2009.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 20]
- 19.NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. Hospital prescribing, England: 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/007_Primary_Care/Prescribing/Hospital%20Prescribing%202010/Hospital_prescribing_bulletin_England_2010.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 20]
- 20.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. ERNIE: Evaluation and Review of NICE Implementation Evidence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/evaluationandreviewofniceimplementationevidenceernie/searchernie/search_ernie.jsp [Accessed 2011 Dec 28]
- 21.Lillis M. Baucus scores a big win for big pharma. Washington Independent 2009 Sep 24 [online]. Available from URL: http://washingtonindependent.com/60782/baucus-scores-a-win-for-big-pharma [Accessed 2011 Sep 22]
- 25.Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: IOM, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://iom.edu/Reports/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities.aspx [Accessed 2011 Sep 22]
- 28.NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. Health technology assessment: the internationally acclaimed journal series of the HTA programme [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hta.ac.uk/research/HTAjournal.shtml [Accessed 2011 Dec 29]
- 29.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp [Accessed 2011 Sep 22]