The landscape of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology

Journal name:
Nature Reviews Rheumatology
Volume:
10,
Pages:
57–62
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2013.140
Published online

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a growing area of investigation aimed at determining the most beneficial treatments for patients in view of their clinical characteristics. CER provides personalized treatment information that cannot be obtained from traditional clinical trials. However, many analytical challenges to performing CER remain, particularly in nonexperimental settings. The main obstacles to CER include bias from variation in use of treatments, and heterogeneity in types and quality of data across registries. Increasing standardization of care and consensus among stakeholders regarding CER methodology will strengthen the validity of CER from observational data. Innovations in outcomes measurement, and the ability to repurpose electronic health record data for research will increase the capability to assess treatment effects by CER in clinical practice. Investment in infrastructure, informatics, and data management to sustain high-quality registries, along with engagement of stakeholders to maintain a co-ordinated research agenda, are essential for successful CER in rheumatology.

References

  1. Conway, P. H. & Clancy, C. Comparative-effectiveness research—implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 328330 (2009).
  2. Tunis, S., Clancy, C., Helms, W. D., McGinnis, J. M. & Pearson, S. D. Roundtable on expanding capacity for comparative effectiveness research in the United States: discussion took place on June 3, 2007, at the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting in Orlando, FL. Health Serv. Res. 44, 327342 (2009).
  3. Blackstone, E. A., Fuhr, J. P., Jr. & Ziernicki, D. Will comparative effectiveness research finally succeed? Biotechnol. Healthc. 9, 2226 (2012).
  4. Selby, J. V., Beal, A. C. & Frank, L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 307, 15831584 (2012).
  5. Tunis, S. R., Benner, J. & McClellan, M. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat. Med. 29, 19631976 (2010).
  6. Clement, F. M. et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302, 14371443 (2009).
  7. Curtis, J. R. et al. A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 40, 214 (2010).
  8. Thorpe, K. E. et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 464475 (2009).
  9. Berry, D. A. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 2736 (2006).
  10. Huber, A. M., Tomlinson, G. A., Koren, G. & Feldman, B. M. Amitriptyline to relieve pain in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a pilot study using Bayesian metaanalysis of multiple N-of-1 clinical trials. J. Rheumatol. 34, 11251132 (2007).
  11. Gabler, N. B., Duan, N., Vohra, S. & Kravitz, R. L. N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: a systematic review. Med. Care 49, 761768 (2011).
  12. Platt, R. et al. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program: status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 21 (Suppl. 1), 18 (2012).
  13. Brown, J. S. et al. Distributed health data networks: a practical and preferred approach to multi-institutional evaluations of comparative effectiveness, safety, and quality of care. Med. Care 48, S45S51 (2010).
  14. Canhao, H. et al. Comparative effectiveness and predictors of response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 51, 20202026 (2012).
  15. Moots, R. J. & Naisbett-Groet, B. The efficacy of biologic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 51, 22522261 (2012).
  16. Schoels, M., Aletaha, D., Smolen, J. S. & Wong, J. B. Comparative effectiveness and safety of biological treatment options after tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor failure in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and indirect pairwise meta-analysis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 71, 13031308 (2012).
  17. Zink, A. et al. Effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis in an observational cohort study: comparison of patients according to their eligibility for major randomized clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 54, 33993407 (2006).
  18. Haynes, K. et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor therapy and cancer risk in chronic immune-mediated diseases. Arthritis Rheum. 65, 4858 (2013).
  19. Aletaha, D. et al. Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. Arthritis Rheum. 59, 13711377 (2008).
  20. Bombardier, C. et al. Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: part II safety. J. Rheumatol. 39, 15831602 (2012).
  21. Bykerk, V. P. et al. Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. J. Rheumatol. 39, 15591582 (2012).
  22. Singh, J. A. & Cameron, D. R. Summary of AHRQ's comparative effectiveness review of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults—an update. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 18, S1S18 (2012).
  23. Singh, J. A. et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 64, 625639 (2012).
  24. Bernatsky, S., Lix, L., O'Donnell, S. & Lacaille, D. Consensus statements for the use of administrative health data in rheumatic disease research and surveillance. J. Rheumatol. 24, 6673 (2013).
  25. Suissa, S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 16, 241249 (2007).
  26. Dixon, W. G. et al. EULAR points to consider when establishing, analysing and reporting safety data of biologics registers in rheumatology. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 69, 15961602 (2010).
  27. Pincus, T., Brooks, R. H. & Callahan, L. F. A proposed 30–45 minute 4 page standard protocol to evaluate rheumatoid arthritis (SPERA) that includes measures of inflammatory activity, joint damage, and longterm outcomes. J. Rheumatol. 26, 473480 (1999).
  28. Pincus, T., Swearingen, C. J., Bergman, M. & Yazici, Y. RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), a rheumatoid arthritis index without formal joint counts for routine care: proposed severity categories compared to disease activity score and clinical disease activity index categories. J. Rheumatol. 35, 21362147 (2008).
  29. Neogi, T. et al. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report. Arthritis Rheum. 62, 25822591 (2010).
  30. Lopez-Olivo, M. A., Kallen, M. A., Ortiz, Z., Skidmore, B. & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements on the use of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum. 59, 16251638 (2008).
  31. Davis, D. A., Thomson, M. A., Oxman, A. D. & Haynes, R. B. Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 274, 700705 (1995).
  32. DeWitt, E. M. et al. Consensus treatment plans for new-onset systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 64, 10011010 (2012).
  33. Mina, R. et al. Consensus treatment plans for induction therapy of newly diagnosed proliferative lupus nephritis in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 64, 375383 (2012).
  34. Khanna, D. et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)—The future of measuring patient reported outcomes in rheumatology. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 63, S486S490 (2011).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics and The James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre, Division of Rheumatology, MLC 4010, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229-3026, USA.

    • Esi Morgan DeWitt &
    • Hermine I. Brunner

Contributions

E. M. DeWitt and H. I. Brunner contributed substantially to researching data for the article, discussion of content, writing the article and to reviewing the manuscript before submission.

Competing interests statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

  • Esi Morgan DeWitt

    Esi Morgan DeWitt is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA. Dr Morgan DeWitt received her MD from Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA, and completed her residency at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA, USA, where she also pursued a fellowship in rheumatology and a Master of Science in Clinical Epidemiology. Dr Morgan DeWitt's clinical and research interests include patient reported outcomes measure development, quality improvement, health services research, economic evaluations, comparative effectiveness and childhood rheumatic diseases. She is also a leader for the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network.

  • Hermine I. Brunner

    Hermine Brunner received her MD from Ludwig Maximilan University, Munich, Germany, and completed her residency at the University of Chicago, USA. She then pursued fellowships in pediatric rheumatology and also completed a Masters degree in Clinical Epidemiology. Dr Brunner currently works in the department of Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA. Dr Brunner is the scientific director of the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group and she is a steering committee member of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. Her clinical and research interests include health-related quality of life, outcome research, lupus, economic analyses, HRQOL, measurement development.

Additional data