Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

The landscape of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology

Nature Reviews Rheumatology volume 10, pages 57–62 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Conway, P. H. & Clancy, C. Comparative-effectiveness research—implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 328–330 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 327–342 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blackstone, E. A., Fuhr, J. P., Jr . & Ziernicki, D. Will comparative effectiveness research finally succeed? Biotechnol. Healthc. 9, 22–26 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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, 1583–1584 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tunis, S. R., Benner, J. & McClellan, M. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat. Med. 29, 1963–1976 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 1437–1443 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 2–14 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Thorpe, K. E. et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 464–475 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berry, D. A. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 27–36 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 1125–1132 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 761–768 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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), 1–8 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, S45–S51 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Canhao, H. et al. Comparative effectiveness and predictors of response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 51, 2020–2026 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 2252–2261 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 1303–1308 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 3399–3407 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Haynes, K. et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor therapy and cancer risk in chronic immune-mediated diseases. Arthritis Rheum. 65, 48–58 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Aletaha, D. et al. Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. Arthritis Rheum. 59, 1371–1377 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 1583–1602 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 1559–1582 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, S1–S18 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 625–639 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 66–73 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Suissa, S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 16, 241–249 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 1596–1602 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 473–480 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2136–2147 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 2582–2591 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 1625–1638 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, 700–705 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. DeWitt, E. M. et al. Consensus treatment plans for new-onset systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 64, 1001–1010 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, 375–383 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, S486–S490 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

E. M. DeWitt receives grant support for research in the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Esi Morgan DeWitt & Hermine I. Brunner

Authors
  1. Esi Morgan DeWitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hermine I. Brunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esi Morgan DeWitt.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DeWitt, E., Brunner, H. The landscape of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology. Nat Rev Rheumatol 10, 57–62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2013.140

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2013.140

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing