Comparatively Ineffective? PCORI and the Uphill Battle to Make Evidence Count in US Medicine

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established as part of the Affordable Care Act to promote research on the comparative effectiveness of treatment options. Advocates hoped this information would help reduce wasteful spending by identifying low-value treatments, but many conservatives and industry groups feared PCORI would ration care and threaten physicians' autonomy. PCORI faced three challenges during its first decade of operation: overcoming the controversy of its birth and escaping early termination, shaping medical practice, and building a public reputation for relevance. While PCORI has won reauthorization, it has not yet had a major impact on the decisions of clinicians or payers. PCORI's modest footprint reflects not only the challenges of getting a new organization off the ground but also the larger political, financial, and cultural barriers to the uptake of medical evidence in the US health care system. The growing attention among policymakers and researchers to provider prices (rather than utilization) as the driver of health care spending could be helpful to the political prospects of the evidence-based medicine project by making it appear to be less as rationing driven by costs and more as an effort to improve quality and uphold medical professionalism.

A Culture-Centered Community-Grounded Approach to Disseminating Health Information among African Americans

This study highlights the role of local communities in creating culturally rooted health information resources based on comparative effectiveness research (CER), depicting the role of culture in creating entry points for building community-grounded communication structures for evidence-based health knowledge. We report the results from running a year-long culture-centered campaign that was carried out among African American communities in two counties, Lake and Marion County, in Indiana addressing basic evidence-based knowledge on four areas of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Campaign effectiveness was tested through an experimental design with post-test knowledge of CER among African Americans in these counties compared to CER knowledge among African Americans in a comparable control county (Allen). Our campaign, based on the principles of the culture-centered approach (CCA), increased community CER knowledge in the experimental communities relative to a community that did not receive the culturally centered health information campaign. The CCA-based campaign developed by community members and distributed through the mass media, community wide channels such as health fairs and church meetings, postcards, and face-to-face interventions explaining the postcards improved CER knowledge in specific areas (ACE-I/ARBs, atrial fibrillation, and renal artery stenosis) in the CCA communities as compared to the control community.

Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America Partners Patient-Powered Research Network: Patient Perspectives on Facilitators and Barriers to Building an Impactful Patient-Powered Research Network

BACKGROUND

To build a Patient-Powered Research Networks (PPRN) that prioritizes the needs of its members who have inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), we sought to better understand patients' preferences for what are the essential features that will facilitate and sustain engagement.

METHODS

We conducted a two-phase qualitative study. Seven focus groups involving 62 participants with IBD were conducted (phase 1). Focus group results informed the phase 2 cognitive interviews, which included 13 phone interviews. Topics included experiences with IBD and research, PPRN engagement, patient-generated health data, and resources/tools to facilitate self-management. All focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti 7.5. Thematic categories were derived from the data, and codes were grouped into emergent themes and relationships.

RESULTS

Four major themes emerged through inductive coding: (1) the impact of knowing; (2) participation barriers and challenges; (3) engagement and collaboration; and (4) customizable patient portal features/functionalities. Participants were motivated to participate in the PPRN because the knowledge gained from research studies would benefit both society and the individual. Main concerns included credibility of online resources, pharmaceutical industry profiting from their data, data security, and participation expectations. Participants wanted a true and equal partnership in every phase of building a PPRN. Participants felt it was important to have access to personal health records and be able to track health status and symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with participants throughout PPRN development was critical to understanding the needs and preferences of patients with IBDs and for shaping engagement strategies and the portal's design.

Experiences of Structured Elicitation for Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

BACKGROUND

Empirical evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness estimates of particular health care technologies may be limited, or it may even be missing entirely. In these situations, additional information, often in the form of expert judgments, is needed to reach a decision. There are formal methods to quantify experts' beliefs, termed as structured expert elicitation (SEE), but only limited research is available in support of methodological choices. Perhaps as a consequence, the use of SEE in the context of cost-effectiveness modelling is limited.

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews applications of SEE in cost-effectiveness modelling with the aim of summarizing the basis for methodological choices made in each application and recording the difficulties and challenges reported by the authors in the design, conduct, and analyses.

METHODS

The methods used in each application were extracted along with the criteria used to support methodological and practical choices and any issues or challenges discussed in the text. Issues and challenges were extracted using an open field, and then categorised and grouped for reporting.

RESULTS

The review demonstrates considerable heterogeneity in methods used, and authors acknowledge great methodological uncertainty in justifying their choices. Specificities of the context area emerging as potentially important in determining further methodological research in elicitation are between- expert variation and its interpretation, the fact that substantive experts in the area may not be trained in quantitative subjects, that judgments are often needed on various parameter types, the need for some form of assessment of validity, and the need for more integration with behavioural research to devise relevant debiasing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of experiences of SEE highlights a number of specificities/constraints that can shape the development of guidance and target future research efforts in this area.

DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation.

RESULTS

In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.

Specialty pharmaceuticals and the quest for better outcomes

Over the past decade, the healthcare system has seen significant growth in the number of products, pathways, and modes of treatment administration for a number of costly conditions. Many of these products are biologic agents, classified as specialty pharmaceuticals, and are distributed through specialty pharmacies. The increasing use of these expensive medications and their growing costs raise the simple question, can payers and purchasers afford to keep doing business as usual? In addition, confusion exists as to what "outcomes" are relevant for these conditions treated using specialty medications. Available information on outcomes, treatments, and pathways from multiple sources can overload clinicians and the treatment team, making it difficult to select - and receive reimbursement for - the most appropriate regimens. This article offers an approach to understanding some of the unique challenges posed in evaluating the value of specialty pharmaceuticals.

Validating pharmaceutical product claims: questions a formulary committee should ask

Claims, justifying the acceptance and placement of new products on health system formularies, are all too often presented in terms that are either unverifiable or only verifiable in a timeframe that is of no practical benefit to formulary committees. One solution is for formulary committees to request that (i) all predictive claims made should be capable of empirical testing and (ii) manufacturers in making submissions should be asked to submit a protocol that details how their claims are to be assessed. Evaluation of claims can provide not only a significant input to ongoing disease area and therapeutic reviews, but can also provide a needed link to comparative effectiveness research and value-based healthcare. This paper presents a set of protocol standards (PROST) together will questions that should be addressed in a protocol review.

A Rehabilomics framework for personalized and translational rehabilitation research and care for individuals with disabilities: Perspectives and considerations for spinal cord injury

Despite many people having similar clinical presentation, demographic factors, and clinical care, outcome can differ for those sustaining significant injury such as spinal cord injury (SCI) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). In addition to traditional demographic, social, and clinical factors, variability also may be attributable to innate (including genetic, transcriptomic proteomic, epigenetic) biological variation that individuals bring to recovery and their unique response to their care and environment. Technologies collectively called "-omics" enable simultaneous measurement of an enormous number of biomolecules that can capture many potential biological contributors to heterogeneity of injury/disease course and outcome. Due to the nature of injury and complex disease, and its associations with impairment, disability, and recovery, rehabilitation does not lend itself to a singular "protocolized" plan of therapy. Yet, by nature and by necessity, rehabilitation medicine operates as a functional model of "Personalized Care". Thus, the challenge for successful programs of translational rehabilitation care and research is to identify viable approaches to examine broad populations, with varied impairments and functional limitations, and to identify effective treatment responses that incorporate personalized protocols to optimize functional recovery. The Rehabilomics framework is a translational model that provides an "-omics" overlay to the scientific study of rehabilitation processes and multidimensional outcomes. Rehabilomics research provides novel opportunities to evaluate the neurobiology of complex injury or chronic disease and can be used to examine methods and treatments for person-centered care among populations with disabilities. Exemplars for application in SCI and other neurorehabilitation populations are discussed.

Uncertainties in real-world decisions on medical technologies

Patients, clinicians, payers and policy makers face substantial uncertainties in their respective healthcare decisions as they attempt to achieve maximum value, or the greatest level of benefit possible at a given cost. Uncertainties largely come from incomplete information at the time that decisions must be made. This is true in all areas of medicine because evidence from clinical trials is often incongruent with real-world patient care. This article highlights key uncertainties around the (comparative) benefits and harms of medical technologies. Initiatives and strategies such as comparative effectiveness research and coverage with evidence development may help to generate reliable and relevant evidence for decisions on coverage and treatment. These efforts could result in better decisions that improve patient outcomes and better use of scarce medical resources.

Comparative effectiveness research in clinical practice

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has funded systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research in 17 areas over the last 10 years as part of a federal mandate. These reviews provide a reliable and unbiased source of comprehensive information about the effectiveness and risks of treatment alternatives for patients and clinicians. This article describes comparative effectiveness research, provides an overview of how physicians can use it in clinical practice, and references important contributions made by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center.

Adaptation and dissemination of an evidence-based obesity prevention intervention: design of a comparative effectiveness trial

Low-income youth are at increased risk for excess weight gain. Although evidence-based prevention programs exist, successful adaptation to provide wide dissemination presents a challenge. Hip-Hop to Health (HH) is a school-based obesity prevention intervention that targets primarily preschool children of low-income families. In a large randomized controlled trial, HH was found to be efficacious for prevention of excessive weight gain. The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) are USDA-funded nutrition education programs offered to low-income families, and may provide an ideal platform for the wide dissemination of evidence-based obesity prevention programs. A research-practice partnership was established in order to conduct formative research to guide the adaptation and implementation of HH through EFNEP and SNAP-Ed. We present the design and method of a comparative effectiveness trial that will determine the efficacy of HH when delivered by peer educators through these programs compared to the standard EFNEP and SNAP-Ed nutrition education (NE) curriculum. Results from this trial will inform larger scale dissemination. The dissemination of HH through government programs has the potential to increase the reach of efficacious obesity prevention programs that target low-income children and families.

The politics of comparative effectiveness research: lessons from recent history

Efforts to support and use comparative effectiveness research (CER), some more successful than others, have been promulgated at various times over the last forty years. Following a resurgence of interest in CER, recent health care reforms provided substantial support to strengthen its role in US health care. While CER has generally captured bipartisan support, detractors have raised concerns that it will be used to ration services and heighten government control over health care. Such concerns almost derailed the initiative during passage of the health care reform legislation and are still present today. Given recent investments in CER and the debates surrounding its development, the time is ripe to reflect on past efforts to introduce CER in the United States. This article examines previous initiatives, highlighting their prescribed role in US health care, the reasons for their success or failure, and the political lessons learned. Current CER initiatives have corrected for many of the pitfalls experienced by previous efforts. However, past experiences point to a number of issues that must still be addressed to ensure the long-term success and sustainability of CER, including adopting realistic aims about its impact, demonstrating the impact of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and communicating the benefits of CER, and maintaining strong political and stakeholder support.

Enhancing cancer registry data for comparative effectiveness research (CER) project: overview and methodology

Following the Institute of Medicine's 2009 report on the national priorities for comparative effectiveness research (CER), funding for support of CER became available in 2009 through the American Recovery and Re-investment Act. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received funding to enhance the infrastructure of population-based cancer registries and to expand registry data collection to support CER. The CDC established 10 specialized registries within the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) to enhance data collection for all cancers and to address targeted CER questions, including the clinical use and prognostic value of specific biomarkers. The project also included a special focus on detailed first course of treatment for cancers of the breast, colon, and rectum, as well as chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) diagnosed in 2011. This paper describes the methodology and the work conducted by the CDC and the NPCR specialized registries in collecting data for the 4 special focused cancers, including the selection of additional data variables, development of data collection tools and software modifications, institutional review board approvals, training, collection of detailed first course of treatment, and quality assurance. It also presents the characteristics of the study population and discusses the strengths and limitations of using population-based cancer registries to support CER as well as the potential future role of population-based cancer registries in assessing the quality of patient care and cancer control.

Comparative effectiveness research: decision-based evidence

In the clinical research context, comparative effectiveness research (CER) refers to the comparison of several health-care interventions administered under real-world conditions to individuals representative of the day-to-day clinical practice target population. We provide a brief history of CER and argue that CER can be used to deliver useful, but currently lacking information. Three study designs that can accomplish this are discussed, and incorporating CER into cost-benefit analyses is examined. The relationships between CER and evidence-based and personalized medicine are also considered, as is the challenge of implementing CER results into routine clinical practice.

Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research

The growing amount of data in operational electronic health record systems provides unprecedented opportunity for its reuse for many tasks, including comparative effectiveness research. However, there are many caveats to the use of such data. Electronic health record data from clinical settings may be inaccurate, incomplete, transformed in ways that undermine their meaning, unrecoverable for research, of unknown provenance, of insufficient granularity, and incompatible with research protocols. However, the quantity and real-world nature of these data provide impetus for their use, and we develop a list of caveats to inform would-be users of such data as well as provide an informatics roadmap that aims to insure this opportunity to augment comparative effectiveness research can be best leveraged.

Data quality assessment for comparative effectiveness research in distributed data networks

BACKGROUND

Electronic health information routinely collected during health care delivery and reimbursement can help address the need for evidence about the real-world effectiveness, safety, and quality of medical care. Often, distributed networks that combine information from multiple sources are needed to generate this real-world evidence.

OBJECTIVE

We provide a set of field-tested best practices and a set of recommendations for data quality checking for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in distributed data networks.

METHODS

Explore the requirements for data quality checking and describe data quality approaches undertaken by several existing multi-site networks.

RESULTS

There are no established standards regarding how to evaluate the quality of electronic health data for CER within distributed networks. Data checks of increasing complexity are often used, ranging from consistency with syntactic rules to evaluation of semantics and consistency within and across sites. Temporal trends within and across sites are widely used, as are checks of each data refresh or update. Rates of specific events and exposures by age group, sex, and month are also common.

DISCUSSION

Secondary use of electronic health data for CER holds promise but is complex, especially in distributed data networks that incorporate periodic data refreshes. The viability of a learning health system is dependent on a robust understanding of the quality, validity, and optimal secondary uses of routinely collected electronic health data within distributed health data networks. Robust data quality checking can strengthen confidence in findings based on distributed data network.

Measurement in comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) on preventive services can shape policy and help patients, their providers, and public health practitioners select regimens and programs for disease prevention. Patients and providers need information about the relative effectiveness of various regimens they may choose. Decision makers need information about the relative effectiveness of various programs to offer or recommend. The goal of this paper is to define and differentiate measures of relative effectiveness of regimens and programs for disease prevention. Cancer screening is used to demonstrate how these measures differ in an example of two hypothetical screening regimens and programs. Conceptually and algebraically defined measures of relative regimen and program effectiveness also are presented. The measures evaluate preventive services that range from individual tests through organized, population-wide prevention programs. Examples illustrate how effective screening regimens may not result in effective screening programs and how measures can vary across subgroups and settings. Both regimen and program relative effectiveness measures assess benefits of prevention services in real-world settings, but each addresses different scientific and policy questions. As the body of CER grows, a common lexicon for various measures of relative effectiveness becomes increasingly important to facilitate communication and shared understanding among researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers.

Setting high-impact clinical research priorities for the Society for Vascular Surgery

With the overall goal of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of vascular care, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recently completed a process by which it identified its top clinical research priorities to address critical gaps in knowledge guiding practitioners in prevention and treatment of vascular disease. After a survey of the SVS membership, a panel of SVS committee members and opinion leaders considered 53 distinct research questions through a structured process that resulted in identification of nine clinical issues that were felt to merit immediate attention by vascular investigators and external funding agencies. These are, in order of priority: (1) define optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, (2) compare the effectiveness of medical vs invasive treatment (open or endovascular) of vasculogenic claudication, (3) compare effectiveness of open vs endovascular infrainguinal revascularization as initial treatment of critical limb ischemia, (4) develop and compare the effectiveness of clinical strategies to reduce cardiovascular and other perioperative complications (eg, wound) after vascular intervention, (5) compare the effectiveness of strategies to enhance arteriovenous fistula maturation and durability, (6) develop best practices for management of chronic venous ulcer, (7) define optimal adjunctive medical therapy to enhance the success of lower extremity revascularization, (8) identify and evaluate medical therapy to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysm growth, and (9) evaluate ultrasound vs computed tomographic angiography surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives

Providing universal access to innovative, high-cost technologies leads to tensions in today's health care systems. The tension becomes particularly evident in the context of scarce resources, where the risk of taking contentious coverage decisions increases rapidly. To ensure economic sustainability, the payers of health care think that the benefits from the use of the new technologies need to be commensurate with the costs. Therefore, many jurisdictions have programs of health technology assessment, which often results in restrictions of access to care, either through complete refusal to reimburse the technology or its restriction of use to only a subset of the eligible patient population. However, manufacturers feel that they should be adequately rewarded for their innovations and require sufficient funds to invest in further research. Finally, patients perceive these technologies to have added benefits, and so they are concerned when they are denied access. If sustainable access to health care is to be maintained in the future, approaches are needed to reconcile these different perspectives. This article explores the approaches, in both methods and policy, to help bring about this reconciliation. These include rethinking the notion of social value (on the part of payers), aligning manufacturers' research more closely with societal objectives, and increasing patient participation in health technology assessment.

General practice-based clinical trials in Germany - a problem analysis

BACKGROUND

In Germany, clinical trials and comparative effectiveness studies in primary care are still very rare, while their usefulness has been recognised in many other countries. A network of researchers from German academic general practice has explored the reasons for this discrepancy.

METHODS

Based on a comprehensive literature review and expert group discussions, problem analyses as well as structural and procedural prerequisites for a better implementation of clinical trials in German primary care are presented.

RESULTS

In Germany, basic biomedical science and technology is more reputed than clinical or health services research. Clinical trials are funded by industry or a single national programme, which is highly competitive, specialist-dominated, exclusive of pilot studies, and usually favours innovation rather than comparative effectiveness studies. Academic general practice is still not fully implemented, and existing departments are small. Most general practitioners (GPs) work in a market-based, competitive setting of small private practices, with a high case load. They have no protected time or funding for research, and mostly no research training or experience. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training is compulsory for participation in clinical trials. The group defined three work packages to be addressed regarding clinical trials in German general practice: (1) problem analysis, and definition of (2) structural prerequisites and (3) procedural prerequisites. Structural prerequisites comprise specific support facilities for general practice-based research networks that could provide practices with a point of contact. Procedural prerequisites consist, for example, of a summary of specific relevant key measures, for example on a web platform. The platform should contain standard operating procedures (SOPs), templates, checklists and other supporting materials for researchers.

CONCLUSION

All in all, our problem analyses revealed that a substantial number of barriers contribute to the low implementation of clinical research in German general practice. Some issues are deeply rooted in Germany's market-based healthcare and academic systems and traditions. However, new developments may facilitate change: recent developments in the German research landscape are encouraging.

The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007)

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the value of research of the RxPONDER study, an ongoing comparative effectiveness RCT designed to evaluate a 21-gene profile in early stage, node-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

We developed a disease-based decision-analytic model to compare use of the 21-gene profile versus standard care. Key clinical data were derived from SWOG-8814, an RCT of chemotherapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. Other model parameters were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic simulations and value of information calculations were used to assess the expected value of sample information (EVSI) and the expected value of sample parameter information (EVSPI).

RESULTS

The cost of the RxPONDER trial is expected to be at least $27 million. The expected value of research of the RxPONDER trial ranged from $450 million to $1 billion, representing a return of 17 to 39 times the projected cost of the trial. The primary objective of RxPONDER, to assess survival, had the largest estimated value relative to other model inputs. The value of RxPONDER increased by $50 million to $100 million after stakeholder input on additional data collection.

CONCLUSION

The RxPONDER study appears to represent a good investment of public research funds. Stakeholder engagement and assessment of the return on investment should be considered to optimize and quantify the value of comparative effectiveness studies.

Looking at CER from the pharmaceutical industry perspective

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is increasing as an element of health care reform in the United States. By comparing drugs against other drugs or other therapies instead of just to placebo, CER has the potential to improve decisions about the appropriate treatment for patients. But the growth of CER also brings an array of questions and decisions for purchasers and policy makers that will not be easy to answer and which require significant dialogue to fully understand and address.

OBJECTIVE

To describe some of the impact, both positive and negative, that comparative effectiveness research (CER) may have on the pharmaceutical industry.

SUMMARY

As CER data proliferate, questions are being raised about who can access the data, who can discuss it, and in what forums. Regulations place different communication restrictions on the pharmaceutical industry than on other health care stakeholders, which creates a potential inequality. Another CER consideration will be the tendency to apply average results to individuals, even if not every individual experiences the average result. Policy makers should implement CER findings carefully with a goal toward accommodating flexibility. A final impact to consider is whether greater expectations for CER will have a negative or positive effect on incentives for drug innovation. In some cases, CER may increase development costs or decrease market size. In other cases, better targeting of trial populations could result in lower development costs.

CONCLUSION

The rising expectations and growth in CER raise questions about information access, communication restrictions, flexible implementation policies, and incentives for innovation. Members of the pharmaceutical industry should be cognizant of the questions and should be participating in dialogues now to pave the way for future solutions.

Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN Experience

BACKGROUND

Systematic approaches to stakeholder-informed research prioritization are a central focus of comparative effectiveness research. Genomic testing in cancer is an ideal area to refine such approaches given rapid innovation and potentially significant impacts on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pilot test a stakeholder-informed approach to prioritizing genomic tests for future study in collaboration with the cancer clinical trials consortium SWOG.

METHODS

We conducted a landscape analysis to identify genomic tests in oncology using a systematic search of published and unpublished studies, and expert consultation. Clinically valid tests suitable for evaluation in a comparative study were presented to an external stakeholder group. Domains to guide the prioritization process were identified with stakeholder input, and stakeholders ranked tests using multiple voting rounds.

RESULTS

A stakeholder group was created including representatives from patient-advocacy groups, payers, test developers, regulators, policy makers, and community-based oncologists. We identified 9 domains for research prioritization with stakeholder feedback: population impact; current standard of care, strength of association; potential clinical benefits, potential clinical harms, economic impacts, evidence of need, trial feasibility, and market factors. The landscape analysis identified 635 studies; of 9 tests deemed to have sufficient clinical validity, 6 were presented to stakeholders. Two tests in lung cancer (ERCC1 and EGFR) and 1 test in breast cancer (CEA/CA15-3/CA27.29) were identified as top research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a diverse stakeholder group to inform research prioritization is feasible in a pragmatic and timely manner. Additional research is needed to optimize search strategies, stakeholder group composition, and integration with existing prioritization mechanisms.

Looking at CER from Medicare's perspective

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is rapidly adding to the amount of data available to health care coverage and payment decision makers. Medicare's decisions have a large effect on coverage and reimbursement policies throughout the health insurance industry and will likely influence the entire U.S. health care system; thus, examining its role in integrating CER into policy is crucial.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the potential benefits of CER to support payment and coverage decisions in the Medicare program, limitations on its use,the role of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in improving the infrastructure for CER, and to discuss challenges that must be addressed to integrate CER into CMS's decision-making process.

SUMMARY

A defining feature of CER is that it provides the type of evidence that will help decision makers, such as patients, clinicians, and payers,make more informed treatment and policy decisions. Because CMS is responsible for more than 47 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, the way that Medicare uses CER has the potential to have a large impact on public and individual health. Currently many critical payment and coverage decisions within the Medicare program are made on the basis of poor quality evidence, and CER has the potential to greatly improve the quality of decision making. Despite common misconceptions, CMS is not prohibited by law from using CER apart from some reasonable limitations. CMS is,however, required to support the development of the CER infrastructure by making their data more readily available to researchers. While CER has substantial potential to improve the quality of the agency's policy decisions,challenges remain to integrate CER into Medicare's processes. These challenges include statutory ambiguities, lack of sufficient staff and internal resources to take advantage of CER, and the lack of an active voice in setting priorities for CER and study design.

CONCLUSION

Although challenges exist, CER has the potential to greatly enhance CMS's ability to make decisions regarding coverage and payment that will benefit both the agency and their patient population.

Looking at CER from the managed care organization perspective

BACKGROUND

The amount of available comparative effectiveness research (CER) is increasing, giving managed care organizations (MCOs) more information to use in decision making. However, MCOs may not be prepared to integrate this new and voluminous data into their current practices and policies.

OBJECTIVES

To describe ways that health care reform will affect MCO populations in the future, to examine examples of how MCOs have utilized CER data in the past, and to identify questions that MCOs will have to address as they integrate CER into future decision making.

SUMMARY

Unquestionably, health care reform will change the U.S. market. Millions more insured individuals will be making purchasing decisions. In addition, health care reform will mean more CER data will be available, affecting the decisions MCOs must make. In the past, MCOs may not have used CER as effectively as they could in making formulary and other policy decisions. However, there are examples that show how CER can be integrated effectively, such as Intermountain Healthcare's use of CER to create treatment guidelines, which have been shown to lower costs and improve delivery of care. In the future, MCOs will need to assess their own abilities to utilize CER, including their infrastructure of expertise, hardware, software, and protocols and processes. MCOs will also need to understand how pertinent CER is to their own needs, how it may affect benefit design, and how it will affect their customers' needs.

CONCLUSION

Health care reform, and the resultant growth of CER, will have significant impact on MCOs, who will need to invest in better infrastructure and new understandings of a transforming market, changing customer bases, and evolving data.

It is important to distinguish CER from patient-centered outcomes research. Introduction

OBJECTIVES:

To (a) enable decision making based on indicators of treatment outcomes for multiple myeloma (e.g., overall survival, progression-free survival, etc.) and markers of clinical efficacy (e.g., complete response, partial response, progressive disease, etc.); (b) coordinate oncology care and health plan medical and pharmacy management services to improve outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma; (c) enable the use of decision support tools to appropriately invest resources and reduce treatment variability with multiple myeloma therapies; (d) construct a benefit design model for multiple myeloma drugs; (e) recommend methods to improve patient outcomes with supportive care for multiple myeloma within a health plan setting; and (f) implement accurate and appropriate counsel, as part of the treatment team, that will improve patient adherence to treatment recommendations.

SUMMARY:

The first article in this supplement, “Identifying Indicators of Outcomes and Implementing Treatment Pathways,” reviews outcomes measures typically used in phase 3 clinical trials investigating novel oncology therapies and how these measures influence clinical decision making in the treatment of multiple myeloma. The second article, “Applying Oncology Formulary and Benefit Design Innovations to the Management of Multiple Myeloma in the Managed Care Setting,” discusses how comparative effectiveness research is used to generate data that can be utilized by policy makers, plan administrators, payers, and patients to identify therapies that provide the greatest value. The third article, “Multiple Myeloma: Supportive Care Requirements and Coordination of Patient-Centered Care,” identifies the elements of supportive care for multiple myeloma and discusses techniques to keep the patient experience as the focal point of the treatment plan.

CONCLUSIONS:

Multiple myeloma is representative of a disease in which the introduction of novel therapies has increased survival and patient quality of life. Increasing use of these innovative yet expensive drugs has motivated efforts to redesign the oncology pharmacy benefit in a way that promotes both enhanced clinical outcomes and cost control. This process relies on robust economic and clinical data; however, these data are limited. To determine the best value-based strategies for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, managed care decision makers must continue to assess the evolving landscape of treatment options and consider both clinical outcomes and treatment costs in their analyses.

Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science

BACKGROUND

Current approaches to medical science generally have not resulted in rapid, robust integration into feasible, sustainable real world healthcare programs and policies. Implementation science risks falling short of expectations if it aligns with historical norms. Fundamentally different scientific approaches are needed to accelerate such integration.

METHODS

We propose that the key goal of implementation science should be to study the development, spread and sustainability of broadly applicable and practical programs, treatments, guidelines, and policies that are contextually relevant and robust across diverse settings, delivery staff, and subgroups. We recommend key conceptual and methodological characteristics needed to accomplish these goals.

RESULTS

The methods to produce such advances should be rapid, rigorous, transparent, and contextually relevant. We recommend approaches that incorporate a systems perspective, investigate generalizability, are transparent, and employ practical measures and participatory approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

To produce different outcomes, we need to think and act differently. Implications of such an implementation science approach include fundamental changes that should be relevant to Clinical Translational Science Award investigators, comparative effectiveness researchers, those interested in pragmatic trials, grant funders, and community partners.

Re-orientation of clinical research in traumatic brain injury: report of an international workshop on comparative effectiveness research

During the National Neurotrauma Symposium 2010, the DG Research of the European Commission and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH/NINDS) organized a workshop on comparative effectiveness research (CER) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). This workshop reviewed existing approaches to improve outcomes of TBI patients. It had two main outcomes: First, it initiated a process of re-orientation of clinical research in TBI. Second, it provided ideas for a potential collaboration between the European Commission and the NIH/NINDS to stimulate research in TBI. Advances in provision of care for TBI patients have resulted from observational studies, guideline development, and meta-analyses of individual patient data. In contrast, randomized controlled trials have not led to any identifiable major advances. Rigorous protocols and tightly selected populations constrain generalizability. The workshop addressed additional research approaches, summarized the greatest unmet needs, and highlighted priorities for future research. The collection of high-quality clinical databases, associated with systems biology and CER, offers substantial opportunities. Systems biology aims to identify multiple factors contributing to a disease and addresses complex interactions. Effectiveness research aims to measure benefits and risks of systems of care and interventions in ordinary settings and broader populations. These approaches have great potential for TBI research. Although not new, they still need to be introduced to and accepted by TBI researchers as instruments for clinical research. As with therapeutic targets in individual patient management, so it is with research tools: one size does not fit all.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER): a summary of AHRQ's CER on therapies for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the U.S. government has designated funding of several large-scale initiatives for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in health care. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 apportioned more than $1 billion to support CER programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). CER is generally defined as the undertaking of original research or systematic reviews of published literature in order to compare the benefits and risks of different approaches to preventing, diagnosing, or treating diseases. These approaches may include diagnostic tests, medications, medical devices, and surgeries. The overall goals of CER are to support informed health care decisions by patients, clinicians, payers, and policy makers and to apply its evidence to ultimately improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of health care.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) provide managed care professionals with general definitions of CER, specifically as it is administered by AHRQ; (b) discuss the importance of CER to clinical and managed care pharmacists; and (c) summarize key methods and findings from AHRQ's 2007 comparative effectiveness review on therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

SUMMARY

As supported by AHRQ, CER is conducted in order to synthesize comprehensive evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of treatment interventions. The findings from comparative effectiveness reviews can thus contribute to informing therapeutic strategies and treatment decisions. In 2007, a multitude of RA treatment options and studies motivated AHRQ to commission a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Conducted by investigators at the RTI-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center, the review included comparisons of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, synthetic DMARDs versus biologic agents, and various combination therapies. Head-to-head comparisons of synthetic DMARDs generally revealed no significant differences in long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, or in functional capacity or health-related quality of life. Two nonrandomized prospective cohort studies and 1 open-label effectiveness trial reported no differences in ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in patients treated with the tissue necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors etanercept and infliximab. Comparisons of TNF-alpha inhibitors generally indicated no significant differences in rates of adverse events, including serious infections, and no increases in rates over time. In comparisons of a biologic agent combined with methotrexate versus a biologic agent alone, combination therapies were generally associated with better clinical response rates and better outcomes of functional capacity and quality of life. The most common adverse events observed in studies on biologic agents were diarrhea, headache, nausea, rhinitis, injection site reactions, and upper respiratory tract infections.

[President Obama's health care reform: lessons to and from the Israeli health care system]

In March 2010 the United States enacted the most significant health care reform in several decades. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, amongst other provisions, addresses two of the main current shortcomings of the U.S. health system: the large portion of the population that are uninsured and the high percentage of hsealth expenditures (mostly private] which amounts to about 16% of the GDP. Changes to the current structure and financing of the U.S. health system will have implications for other health systems, for science (e.g., through enhanced federal funding for comparative effectiveness research), and for technological advance (e.g., through accelerated development and use of electronic health records). There are several lessons from the reform, and the factors leading to its implementation, for the Israeli health system. Firstly, the basic principles of the Israeli health system are a source of pride, and undermining its main values can have deleterious effects. Overreliance on private, out-of-pocket, spending and lack of support for public practice of medicine (in community and hospital settings) will weaken the public sector, strengthen the private sector, and could result in a tiered lower quality and less accessible public system with greater widening of gaps in health and health care utilization. This paper reviews the main provisions of the U.S. health care reform and the potential implications for the IsraeLi health system.

Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research: are drug and implementation trials equally worth funding?

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor a clinical condition, or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of this article is to compare--within the scope of CER--the value of implementation and drug trials. Implementation trials have limitations similar to drug trials in terms of generalizability of results outside the trial setting and ability to identify best practice. However, in contrast to drug trials, implementation trials do not provide value in terms of ruling out harm, as implementation strategies are unlikely to cause harm in the first place. Still, implementation trials may provide good value when there is a high error probability in deciding whether implementation will be cost effective or if costs associated with making an erroneous decision are high. Yet the low risk of implementation programmes to cause harm may also allow for alternative approaches to identify best implementation practice, perhaps outside the scope of rigorous trials and testing. One such approach that requires further investigation is a competitive market for quality of care, where implementation programmes may be introduced without prior evaluation.

Developing a multidisciplinary model of comparative effectiveness research within a clinical and translational science award

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) were initiated to improve the conduct and impact of the National Institutes of Health's research portfolio, transforming training programs and research infrastructure at academic institutions and creating a nationwide consortium. They provide a model for translating research across disciplines and offer an efficient and powerful platform for comparative effectiveness research (CER), an effort that has long struggled but enjoys renewed hope under health care reform. CTSAs include study design and methods expertise, informatics, and regulatory support; programs in education, training, and career development in domains central to CER; and programs in community engagement.Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University and Montefiore Medical Center have entered a formal partnership that places their CTSA at a critical intersection for clinical and translational research. Their CTSA leaders were asked to develop a strategy for enhancing CER activities, and in 2010 they developed a model that encompasses four broadly defined "compartments" of research strength that must be coordinated for this enterprise to succeed: evaluation and health services research, biobehavioral research and prevention, efficacy studies and clinical trials, and social science and implementation research.This article provides historical context for CER, elucidates Einstein-Montefiore's CER model and strategic planning efforts, and illustrates how a CTSA can provide vision, leadership, coordination, and services to support an academic health center's collaborative efforts to develop a robust CER portfolio and thus contribute to the national effort to improve health and health care.

Integrating economic evaluation methods into clinical and translational science award consortium comparative effectiveness educational goals

With the ongoing debate over health care reform in the United States, public health and policy makers have paid growing attention to the need for comparative effectiveness research (CER). Recent allocation of federal funds for CER represents a significant move toward increased evidence-based practice and better-informed allocation of constrained health care resources; however, there is also heated debate on how, or whether, CER may contribute to controlling national health care expenditures. Economic evaluation, in the form of cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis, is often an aspect of CER studies, yet there are no recommendations or guidelines for providing clinical investigators with the necessary skills to collect, analyze, and interpret economic data from clinical trials or observational studies. With an emphasis on multidisciplinary research, the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and institutional CTSA sites serve as an important resource for training researchers to engage in CER. In this article, the authors discuss the potential role of CTSA sites in integrating economic evaluation methods into their comparative effectiveness education goals, using the Columbia University Medical Center CTSA as an example. By allowing current and future generations of clinical investigators to become fully engaged not only in CER but also in the economic evaluations that result from such analyses, CTSA sites can help develop the necessary foundation for advancing research to guide clinical decision making and efficient use of limited resources.

Commentary: Academic health centers and comparative effectiveness research: opportunities and challenges

The focus of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is decision making by patients, physicians, and policy makers. The key elements of CER are head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, study patients who are representative of typical practice, and the search for patient characteristics that predict differences in response to tests or treatment. The four pillars of CER are research, human and scientific capital, data infrastructure, and translation (of evidence into clinical practice). These are also among the fundamental attributes of an academic health center (AHC). This congruity of structure and purpose should mean that AHCs are well positioned to gain from conducting CER and from translating CER results into practice. This commentary discusses the fit between the missions of AHCs and the purposes of CER, using the four pillars as an organizing framework. Aside from the opportunity to do research, AHCs will see the most gains from CER if they hold themselves accountable for using the best available evidence in patient care. Conversely, practice in community settings will gain from CER only if AHCs do a much better job of teaching medical students and residents to become expert in using evidence to make decisions.

Commentary: Precision science and patient-centered care

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), also known as comparative effectiveness research, offers new opportunities and challenges for academic health centers (AHCs). The author of this commentary summarizes the contributions of some of the articles in this issue that focus on PCOR, and she emphasizes the unique features of this distinctive type of research, which are longitudinal patient follow-up, the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, and the dynamic interaction among all stakeholders throughout all phases of research.The author advocates that researchers engaged in comparative effectiveness research make every effort, and explore innovative means, to accelerate the translation of their research findings into practice. The opportunities to close the gaps between what physicians and medical scientists do and what they know, to support clinicians and patients who are working together in order to rapidly identify the best option for a unique individual, and to lead the way in addressing barriers to achieving personalized, patient-centered care should engage key members of AHCs in comparative effectiveness research, so that these institutions become a vital link connecting biomedical innovation and its precision application in diverse communities and populations.

The implications of comparative effectiveness research for academic medicine

With growing constraints on government spending, policy makers are investing in comparative effectiveness research (CER) to attempt to bring the power of science to bear on the problems of suboptimal outcomes and high cost in the U.S. health care system. This commitment of resources to CER reflects confidence that better evidence can help clinicians and patients make better decisions, consistent with the long tradition of medical schools' and teaching hospitals' use of science to inform medical care. Thus, CER offers a great opportunity, albeit with some considerable challenges, for academic medicine to play a central role in comprehensive health care reform. Certainly, many scientists conducting CER will learn their methodological rigor in the training programs of academic health centers. Numerous new CER research teams will be needed, establishing effective partnerships far outside the walls of the traditional academic setting. And the clinicians interpreting the medical literature and applying the insights from CER to the unique problems of individual patients will need to learn this evidence-based, patient-centered care from the educators, mentors, and role models at U.S. medical and other health science schools and teaching hospitals. Achieving this will require investment in research infrastructure, adaptations of institutional culture, development of new disciplines and research methods, establishment of new collaborations, training of new faculty, and the expansion and refocusing of educational capacity. By successfully responding to this challenge, academic medicine can further strengthen its long-standing commitment to the scientific practice of medicine and the use of evidence in patient-centered, personalized care.