Perspective
Prioritizing Comparative-Effectiveness Research — IOM Recommendations
N Engl J Med 2009; 361:325-328July 23, 2009
- Article
Directed by Congress to rapidly develop a list of broad-based priorities for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to consider as it implements a new agenda for comparative-effectiveness research (CER), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report recommending a portfolio of 100 study topics related to a range of diseases, research methods, and care models that are important to the health of the U.S. population. The IOM report,1 released June 30, also recommends research studies on rare diseases that disproportionately affect certain subgroups of the population, such as women, racial or ethnic minorities, and particular age groups. The panel concluded that “the most important priority of all should be the building of a broad and supportive infrastructure to carry out a sustainable national CER strategy” and that Congress and the secretary of health and human services “must take concerted steps to establish a robust CER enterprise.”
The IOM Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization selected its 100 topics after obtaining extensive input from professional organizations and the public, as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Given the public criticism the research initiative has received, the IOM report noted that “Engaging consumers in CER . . . could help improve the public's trust in the U.S. research enterprise.” The committee began with 1268 CER topics that were nominated by stakeholders and the public and winnowed them down to 82; the other 18 topics were recommended by the committee to fill gaps in the portfolio.
The ARRA, which is the $787 billion economic stimulus package that President Barack Obama signed into law on February 17, 2009, included $1.1 billion for CER. The research priorities developed by the IOM committee — delivered as Congress requested only 19 weeks after Obama signed the measure — must be taken into account by the DHHS as it allocates $400 million in support of CER projects over the next 2 years. (A Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, a new advisory group created by the ARRA, is also providing input to the DHHS [http://hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf]; also see the article by Conway and Clancy, pages 328–330.) Of the $700 million appropriated in the law for CER, Congress allocated $400 million to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and $300 million to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
The IOM committee placed particular emphasis on leading questions regarding the clinical effectiveness of care. Half the 100 recommended primary research areas compare some aspect of the health care delivery system (see graph
Distribution of the IOM's Recommended CER Priorities.). Explaining this emphasis, the report says: “Research topics categorized in this group focus on comparing how or where services are provided, rather than which services are provided. The prominence of health care delivery systems in the portfolio primarily reflects the interest of the public . . . as well as the committee's belief that an early investment in CER should focus on learning how to make services more effective.”Nearly a third of the other primary research priorities address racial and ethnic disparities, and nearly a fifth address patients' functional limitations and disabilities. Other key priority areas are cardiovascular disease, geriatrics, psychiatric disorders, neurologic disorders, and pediatrics. The committee also recommends supporting CER related to patients' decision making, unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, and determining the most effective dissemination methods to ensure translation of CER results into best practices.
Cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease ranks second as primary research areas, after the health care delivery system, in terms of the number of recommended research projects. Diseases of the heart were the leading causes of deaths in the United States in 2006, and such conditions are associated with multiple coexisting conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, that are becoming increasingly prevalent. The CER priority list includes eight topics related to ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and cardiac arrhythmias and two topics focused on the treatment and management of peripheral vascular disorders.
The third most frequent primary research area is psychiatric disorders: the committee has recommended CER studies on the location of mental health care, provider training, various pharmacologic treatments, depression, premature death related to mental disorders, and suicide. The priority list also includes six topics related to neurologic disorders, three of which are the following: imaging used for diagnosing such conditions; treatment of headaches, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy; and the detection, treatment, and management of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
Cancer, the second leading cause of deaths in the United States and one of the most costly diseases to treat, is the focus of six recommended primary CER topics, including screening technologies for colorectal and breast cancers and the use of imaging technologies for diagnosing, staging, and monitoring all cancers. The committee's emphasis on exploring the increased use of advanced imaging studies reflects concern that has already led Congress to take steps to reduce the rapid growth in the use of such tests under Medicare2; private insurers have made similar efforts to control imaging use.
Although the ARRA legitimized the accelerated pursuit of government-funded CER, it did not provide for funding after 2 years or call for the creation of an entity that would oversee such research. The law did mobilize an array of interest groups that oppose, but have been unable to stop, these new activities.3 The Partnership to Improve Patient Care, a coalition of some 36 organizations, has asserted that CER may fail to consider differences among individual patients and may thereby “stymie progress in personalized medicine.”4 Other concerns expressed by opponents — particularly many Republicans — are that CER findings could lead to rationing and government intrusion into the doctor–patient relationship.
As Congress considers legislation to create a more permanent CER structure and to authorize sustained federal funding, opponents will undoubtedly raise similar concerns. The IOM report steers clear of recommending the creation of a new entity to oversee tax-funded CER activities — or of indicating which existing organization should do so — but it urges Congress and the DHHS to “establish a robust CER enterprise” that would closely coordinate these activities. Two bills introduced before the ARRA was enacted and a proposal put forward by health economist Gail Wilensky,5 who advised Senator John McCain (R-AZ) during his presidential bid, all envisioned a CER center that would provide objective, credible information on the probable clinical outcomes of various strategies for treating a given medical condition but that would not make coverage or reimbursement decisions.
The Comparative Effectiveness Research Act was introduced by Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) in 2008, and its essence is certain to be incorporated into any health care reform measure introduced by the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus chairs the committee, and Conrad is one of its most senior members). It would establish a new nonprofit corporation outside of government as the locus of CER, financed through a contribution from Medicare of $1 per beneficiary, with annual increases tied to medical inflation; private plans would be required to contribute $1 per covered life beginning in 2013. By contrast, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, which the House passed in 2007, would situate a new CER center within the AHRQ.
Over the next 20 months, the DHHS, the AHRQ, and the NIH will allocate the ARRA's CER funding. The IOM report contains the first set of priorities for maximizing the value of this research. Because the committee's work was requested by Congress and the resulting portfolio is so broad in scope, the recommendations may be more influential than they might otherwise have been, but the report is unlikely to quell the controversy surrounding CER.
This article (10.1056/NEJMp0904133) was published on June 30, 2009, at NEJM.org.
Source Information
Mr. Iglehart is a national correspondent for the Journal.
- References
References
1
Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2009.
2
Iglehart JK . Health insurers and medical-imaging policy -- a work in progress. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1030-1037
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline3
Avorn J . Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1927-1929
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
Garber AM ,Tunis SR . Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med 2009;360:1925-1927
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline5
Wilensky GR . Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:w572-w585
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (38)
Citing Articles
1
Nicholas F. Marko, Robert J. Weil. (2012) An Introduction to Comparative Effectiveness Research. Neurosurgery 70:2, 425-434
CrossRef2
G. Danaei, M. Tavakkoli, M. A. Hernan. (2012) Bias in Observational Studies of Prevalent Users: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research From a Meta-Analysis of Statins. American Journal of Epidemiology
CrossRef3
Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams. (2012) Translational semantics and infrastructure: another search for the emperor's new clothes?. Drug Discovery Today
CrossRef4
Kurt C. Stange. (2011) Refocusing Knowledge Generation, Application, and Education. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 41:4, S164-S169
CrossRef5
R Ramanathan, J J Bhatia, K Sekar, F R Ernst. (2011) Mortality in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome treated with poractant alfa, calfactant or beractant: a retrospective study. Journal of Perinatology
CrossRef6
Robert Freeman, Jeremiah Sparks, Nancy Davidson. (2011) Risk management and comparative effectiveness research: implications of the new collaborative FDA-CMS initiative. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research 2:3, 129-134
CrossRef7
Louis P. Garrison, Brian W. Bresnahan, Mitchell K. Higashi, William Hollingworth, Jeffrey G. Jarvik. (2011) Innovation in Diagnostic Imaging Services. Academic Radiology 18:9, 1109-1114
CrossRef8
Ketan K. Mane, Chris Bizon, Charles Schmitt, Phillips Owen, Bruce Burchett, Ricardo Pietrobon, Kenneth Gersing. (2011) VisualDecisionLinc: A visual analytics approach for comparative effectiveness-based clinical decision support in psychiatry. Journal of Biomedical Informatics
CrossRef9
Jeremy B. Shelton, Christopher S. Saigal. (2011) The crossroads of evidence-based medicine and health policy: implications for urology. World Journal of Urology 29:3, 283-289
CrossRef10
Nicholas F Marko, Robert J Weil. (2011) A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Strategies to Assess Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Function After Microsurgical Resection of Pituitary Tumors. Neurosurgery 68:6, 1576-1585
CrossRef11
Brian M. Ilfeld, NavParkash S. Sandhu, Vanessa J. Loland, Sarah J. Madison, Preetham J. Suresh, Edward R. Mariano, Michael L. Bishop, Alexandra K. Schwartz, Daniel K. Lee. (2011) Ultrasound-Guided (Needle-in-Plane) Perineural Catheter Insertion. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 36:3, 261-265
CrossRef12
Michael Williams, S J Enna. (2011) Prospects for neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorder drug discovery. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 6:5, 457-463
CrossRef13
2011. References. , 193-223.
CrossRef14
Amy P Abernethy, Jane L Wheeler. (2011) True translational research: bridging the three phases of translation through data and behavior. Translational Behavioral Medicine 1:1, 26-30
CrossRef15
Victor R. Grann, Priya R. Patel, Judith S. Jacobson, Ellen Warner, Daniel F. Heitjan, Maxine Ashby-Thompson, Dawn L. Hershman, Alfred I. Neugut. (2011) Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 125:3, 837-847
CrossRef16
Gláucia Fernandes Cota, Teresa Cristina de Abreu Ferrari, Marcos Roberto de Sousa. (2011) HIV testing strategies: test performance is important, but not sufficient. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 9:2, 207-214
CrossRef17
Johann Auer, Gudrun Lamm. (2011) Drug therapy for sustained ventricular arrhythmias complicating acute myocardial infarction: What does the crystal ball tell you?*. Critical Care Medicine 39:1, 204-205
CrossRef18
Tracy Spinks, Heidi W. Albright, Thomas W. Feeley, Ron Walters, Thomas W. Burke, Thomas Aloia, Eduardo Bruera, Aman Buzdar, Lewis Foxhall, David Hui, Barbara Summers, Alma Rodriguez, Raymond DuBois, Kenneth I. Shine. (2011) Ensuring quality cancer care. Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef19
Robb D. Kociol, Bradley G. Hammill, Gregg C. Fonarow, Winslow Klaskala, Roger M. Mills, Adrian F. Hernandez, Lesley H. Curtis. (2010) Generalizability and longitudinal outcomes of a national heart failure clinical registry: Comparison of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) and non-ADHERE Medicare beneficiaries. American Heart Journal 160:5, 885-892
CrossRef20
J. Auer, J. Brugada. (2010) Restoration of sinus rhythm in patients undergoing surgery for rheumatic valvular heart disease: is it worth the effort?. European Heart Journal 31:21, 2572-2574
CrossRef21
Chu-Lin Tsai. (2010) Pharmacoepidemiologic study of acute exacerbations of COPD: challenges and opportunities. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 8:11, 1221-1224
CrossRef22
Adrian R. Levy, Craig Mitton, Karissa M. Johnston, Brian Harrigan, Andrew H. Briggs. (2010) International Comparison of Comparative Effectiveness Research in Five Jurisdictions. PharmacoEconomics 28:10, 813-830
CrossRef23
Ann G. Zauber. (2010) Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 20:4, 751-770
CrossRef24
Tobias Loddenkemper, Sarena Michell Nichol, Elizabeth N Allred, Alan Leviton. (2010) Fears and promises of comparative effectiveness research. Acta Paediatrica 99:9, 1311-1313
CrossRef25
L. Norgren, W.R. Hiatt, J.A. Dormandy, A.T. Hirsch, M.R. Jaff, C. Diehm, I. Baumgartner, J.J.F. Belch. (2010) The Next 10 years in the Management of Peripheral Artery Disease: Perspectives from The ‘PAD 2009’ Conference. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 40:3, 375-380
CrossRef26
Hashem B. El-Serag, Jayant Talwalkar, W. Ray Kim. (2010) Efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness in liver disease. Hepatology 52:2, 403-407
CrossRef27
James X. Zhang. (2010) Developing Simulation Models to Assess Long-term Comparative Benefits of Surgeries. Journal of Surgical Research 162:2, 163-164
CrossRef28
Muin J. Khoury, William G. Feero, Rodolfo Valdez. (2010) Family History and Personal Genomics As Tools for Improving Health in an Era of Evidence-Based Medicine. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39:2, 184-188
CrossRef29
Carolyn Rouse. (2010) Patient and practitioner noncompliance: rationing, therapeutic uncertainty, and the missing conversation. Anthropology & Medicine 17:2, 187-200
CrossRef30
Lawrence H. Cohn. (2010) The times they are a-changin'. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 140:1, 3-4
CrossRef31
Livio Garattini, Daniela Koleva, Gianluigi Casadei. (2010) Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: Funding sources and outcomes. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 26:03, 330-333
CrossRef32
Karen Schoelles, Rita H. Pickler. (2010) Comparative Effectiveness Research and Pediatric Health Care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care 24:3, 207-210
CrossRef33
Carolyn M. Clancy. (2010) Comparative effectiveness research: Promising area of study for pharmacists. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 50:2, 131-133
CrossRef34
Felipe González Castro, Manuel Barrera, Lori K. Holleran Steiker. (2010) Issues and Challenges in the Design of Culturally Adapted Evidence-Based Interventions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 6:1, 213-239
CrossRef35
José Antonio Serra. (2010) Caídas, malnutrición e investigación en Geriatría. Revista Española de Geriatría y Gerontología 45:2, 61-62
CrossRef36
L. Naldi, A. Svensson, D. Zenoni, T. Diepgen, P. Elsner, J.-J. Grob, P.-J. Coenraads, J.N. Bouwes Bavinck, A. Maccagni, D. Linder, H. Williams, . (2010) Comparators, study duration, outcome measures and sponsorship in therapeutic trials of psoriasis: update of the EDEN Psoriasis Survey 2001-2006. British Journal of Dermatology 162:2, 384-389
CrossRef37
Sandra J. Tanenbaum. (2009) Comparative effectiveness research: evidence-based medicine meets health care reform in the USA. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15:6, 976-984
CrossRef38
Jodi B. Segal. (2009) Need for comparative effectiveness research to address clinical questions in hematology. American Journal of Hematology 84:10, 627-628
CrossRef
