Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th Cong
Ommaya AK, Kupersmith J. Challenges facing the US Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. JAMA 2011; 306: 756–7
Washington AE, Lipstein SH. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: promoting better information, decisions, and health. N Engl J Med 2011 Oct 13; 365(15): e31
Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL. Identifying and eliminating the roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010; 363(2): 105–7
Lauer MS, Collins FS. Using science to improve the nation’s health system: NIH’s commitment to comparative effectiveness research. JAMA 2010; 303(21): 2182–3
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
Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust 2007; 187(5): 283–5
Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA methods and processes. London: Office of Health Economics, 2011 Mar
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]
Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2313–24
NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hta.ac.uk [Accessed 2011 Dec 28]
Rawlins M. De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet 2008; 372(9656): 2152–61
Haycox A. Does ‘NICE blight’ exist, and if so, why? Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(12): 987–9
Briggs A, Ritchie K, Fenwick E, et al. Access with evidence development in the UK: past experience, current initiatives and future potential. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28(2): 163–70
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]
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]
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Funding opportunities [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/ [Accessed 2011 Sep 22]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Kendall T, McGoey L, Jackson E. If NICE was in the USA. Lancet 2009 Jul 25; 374(9686): 272–3
Breckenridge A, Woods K, Walley T. Medicines regulation and health technology assessment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 87: 152–4
Faden RR, Chalkidou K. Determining the value of drugs: the evolving British experience. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1289–91
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]
Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff [Millwood] 2010; 29: 1805–11
Maynard A, Bloor K. The future role of NICE. BMJ 2010; 341: c6286
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]
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]
Acknowledgements
No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. TW is Director of the NIHR HTA programme. The views expressed herein are personal and do not represent those of the NIHR or any other organisation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walley, T. Translating Comparative Effectiveness Research into Clinical Practice. Drugs 72, 163–170 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11630860-000000000-00000
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11630860-000000000-00000