Recent attention has focused on comparative effectiveness research (CER) to determine the clinical effectiveness and safety as well as the economic impact of health care interventions, including health care reform legislation that provides for new funding to develop the infrastructure to support CER. The demand for CER will significantly impact the competitive landscape for many sectors of the health care industry. The development of convincing and credible evidence to support products and services has become a critical competitive issue. In some cases, it has become a requirement for new health technologies to gain market access, achieve and sustain premium pricing, and achieve targeted levels of market acceptance. This article is intended for senior business management in the health care industry to facilitate efforts to make strategic decisions about the level and type of clinical and economic evidence needed to achieve market success in this new landscape. This article focuses primarily on the strategy for medical technology in the prism of CER.
Institute of Medicine. Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008.
3.
Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
4.
EddyD. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: What are we talking about?Value Health2009; 12(Suppl. 2): S6–S7.
5.
NielsenCPFunchTMKristensenFB. Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy2011; 16(Suppl. 2): 6–15.
6.
(2009) International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA Resources. http://www.inahta.org/HTA/ (accessed 13 February 2011).
7.
LuceBRDrummondMJonssonBNeumannPJSchwartzJSSiebertU. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q2010; 88(2): 256–276.
8.
(2012) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. About NICE. Who We Are. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice (accessed 30 December 2011).
Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/prgrams/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf (accessed 30 December 2011).
12.
WuAWSnyderCClancyCMSteinwachsDM. Adding the patient perspective to comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff2010; 29(10): 1863–1871.
13.
ConwayPHClancyC. Comparative-effectiveness research—implications of the Federal Coordinating Council’s report. N Engl J Med2009; 361(4): 328–330.
14.
SoxHCGreenfieldS. Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med2009; 151(3): 203–205.
15.
DrummondMGriffinATarriconeR. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs – same or different. Value Health2009; 12(4): 402–404.
16.
GarberAMSoxHC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff2010; 29(10): 1805–1811.
17.
BergerMLMamdaniMAtkinsDJohnsonML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part I. Value Health2009; 12(8): 1044–1052.
18.
ConcatoJShahNHorwitzRI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med2000; 342(25): 1887–1892.
19.
VolppKGDasA. Comparative effectiveness—thinking beyond mediation A versus medication B. N Engl J Med2009; 361(4): 331–333.
20.
Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, United Kingdom: York Publishing Services Ltd, 2009.
21.
KhairyPO’DonnellCPLandzbergMJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med2003; 139(9): 753–760.
22.
KhandkerRKDulskiJDKilpatrickJPEllisRPMitchellJBBaineWB. A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2000; 16(3): 799–810.
23.
BuskensENederkoornPJBuijs-Van der WoudeTMaliWPKappelleLJEikelboomBC. Imaging of carotid arteries in symptomatic patients: Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies. Radiology2004; 233(1): 101–112.
24.
WinklerSLVogelBHoenigHRipleyDCWuSFitzgeraldSG. Cost, utilization, and policy provision of assistive technology devices to veterans poststroke by Medicare and VA. Med Care2010; 48(6): 558–562.
25.
JadadARMooreRACarrollDJenkinsonCReynoldsDJGavaghanDJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Control Clin Trials1996; 17(1): 1–12.
26.
BodenWEO’RourkeRATeoKKHartiganPMMaronDJKostukWJ. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med2007; 356(15): 1503–1516.
27.
LewisCPignoneMSchildLAScottTWinquistARimerBK. Effectiveness of a patient- and practice-level colorectal cancers screening intervention in health plan members: Design and baseline findings of the CHOICE trial. Cancer2010; 116(7): 1664–1673.
28.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Screening Compute Tomography Colonography (CTC) for Colorectal Cancer (CAG-00396N). http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo.asp?id=220 (accessed 2 March 2011).
29.
LuceBRKramerJMGoodmanSNConnorJTTunisSWhicherD. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: The need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med2009; 151(3): 206–209.
30.
TunisSRStryerDBClancyCM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA2003; 290(12): 1624–1632.
31.
LohrKN. Emerging methods in comparative effectiveness and safety: Symposium overview and summary. Med Care2007; 45(10 Suppl. 2): S5–S8.
32.
PsatyBMSiscovickDS. Minimizing bias due to confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research: The importance of restriction. JAMA2010; 304(8): 897–898.
33.
JohnsonMLCrownWMartinBCDormuthCRSiebertU. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part III. Value Health2009; 12(8): 1062–1073.
