Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2010

01.10.2010 | International Perspectives

Using Comparative Effectiveness Research to Inform Policy and Practice in the UK NHS

Past, Present and Future

verfasst von: Kalipso Chalkidou, MD, PhD, Tom Walley

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 10/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Health systems that have fixed budgets and a coherent organizational structure generally have found it valuable to have a dedicated primary research capacity to answer decision-oriented value-for-money questions of particular importance to the system. The UK NHS is one example of such a system. Here, we review the historical evolution of building comparative effectiveness research (CER) capacity in the NHS, describe the current situation, with a focus on how this research is used to inform decisions, and discuss present and emerging challenges. We draw some possible lessons for the US, which is currently considering using CER to inform healthcare policy and practice decisions.
Fußnoten
1
There is evidence that NICE has reduced variation in uptake of innovative new drugs, such as cancer drugs, although variation still exists across the NHS.[27]
 
Literatur
1.
Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003 Sep 24; 290 (12): 1624–32PubMedCrossRef
2.
Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 2009 Jun; 87 (2): 339–67PubMedCrossRef
3.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, HR1, 111th Cong.
4.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, HR 3590, 111th Cong.
5.
6.
Ferner RE, McDowell SE. A model for NICE in the US. BMJ 2009 Jun; 338: b2221CrossRef
7.
Dhruva SS, Phurrough SE, Salive ME, et al. CMS’s landmark decision on CT colonography: examining the relevant data. N Engl J Med 2009 Jun 25; 360 (26): 2699–701PubMedCrossRef
8.
Culyer AJ. Supporting research and development in the National Health Service: a report to the Minister for Health by a research and development task force chaired by Professor Anthony Culyer. London: HMSO, 1994
9.
Black N. A national strategy for research and development: lessons from England. Annu Rev Public Health 1997; 18: 485–505PubMedCrossRef
10.
Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I. Testing treatments: better research for better healthcare. London: The British Library, 2007
11.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Session 1987-88, 3rd Report. Priorities in Medical Research [HL 54-I, 54-II & 54-III]
12.
Department of Health. Research for health. London: HMSO, 1991
13.
McCollum C. UK National Health Service R&D funding: a bureaucratic nightmare [letter]. Lancet 2003 May 31; 361 (9372): 1906PubMedCrossRef
14.
McNally N, Kerrison S, Pollock AM. Reforming clinical research and development in England. BMJ 2003 Sep 6; 327 (7414): 550–3PubMedCrossRef
15.
Culyer AJ. Economics and public policy: NHS research and development as a public good. York: The University of York, 1998
16.
17.
18.
Horton R. Health research in the UK: the price of success. Lancet 2006 Jul 8; 368 (9530): 93–7PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust 2007 Sep 3; 187 (5): 283–5PubMed
21.
Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. London: HM Treasury, 2006
22.
23.
24.
25.
Chalmers I. Minimizing harm and maximizing benefit during innovation in health care: controlled or uncontrolled experimentation? Birth 1986 Sep; 13 (3): 155–64PubMedCrossRef
26.
Chalmers I. Well informed uncertainties about the effects of treatments. BMJ 2004 Feb 28; 328 (7438): 475–6PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
Department ofHealth. The new NHS. London: Department of Health, 1997
29.
Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005 Nov 23; 294 (20): 2618–22PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
32.
Department of Health. Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work. London: Department of Health, 1999: paragraphs 33–36
33.
Chalkidou K, Hoy A, Littlejohns P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med 2007 Oct; 100 (10): 453–60PubMedCrossRef
34.
Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare’s ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006 Sep-Oct; 25 (5): 1218–30CrossRef
35.
Chalmers I. Addressing uncertainties about the effects of treatments offered to NHS patients: whose responsibility? J R Soc Med 2007 Oct; 100 (10): 440–1PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
Pearson SD, Miller FG, Emanuel EJ. Medicare’s requirement for research participation as a condition of coverage: is it ethical? JAMA 2006 Aug 23; 296 (8): 988–91PubMedCrossRef
38.
Sudlow CL, Counsell CE. Problems with UK government’s risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis. BMJ 2003 Feb 15; 326 (7385): 388–92PubMedCrossRef
39.
Raftery J. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ 2010; 340: c1672
40.
41.
Sullivan FM, Swan IR, Donnan PT, et al. Early treatment with prednisolone or acyclovir in Bell’s palsy. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1598–607PubMedCrossRef
42.
Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby DE, et al., 3CPO Trialists. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 142–51
43.
UKEVAR Trial Investigators, Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC,et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010 May 20; 362 (20): 1863–71CrossRef
44.
Dumville JC, Worthy G, Bland JM, et al., VenUS II team. Larval therapy for leg ulcers (VenUS II): randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009; 338: b773
45.
Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al., for the CESAR trial collaboration. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 1351–63
46.
Tyrer P, Oliver-Africano PC, Ahmed Z, et al. Risperidone, haloperidol, and placebo in the treatment of aggressive challenging behaviour in patients with intellectual disability: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 57–63PubMedCrossRef
47.
CRASH-2 trial collaborators. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. Epub 2010 Jun 14
48.
49.
Department of Health. The 2009 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. London: Department of Health, 2009
50.
Garber AM, McClellan MB. Satisfaction guaranteed: ‘payment by results’ for biologic agents. NEngl J Med 2007 Oct 18; 357 (16): 1575–7CrossRef
51.
Chalkidou K, Lord J, Fischer A, et al. Evidence-based decision making: when should we wait for more information? Health Aff (Millwood) 2008 Nov-Dec; 27 (6): 1642–53CrossRef
52.
53.
National Eye Institute (NEI). Comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials: Lucentis-Avastin trial [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00593450]. US National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov [online]. Available from URL: http://​clinicaltrials.​gov [Accessed 2010 Jun 17]
54.
55.
56.
Appleby J, Philips M. The NHS: satisfied now? In: Park A, Curtice J, Thomson K, et al., editors. British social attitudes, 25th report. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2009: 25–51CrossRef
57.
Samuelson P. The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 1954; 36 (4): 387–9CrossRef
58.
Reinhardt UE. An information infrastructure for the pharmaceutical market. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004 Jan-Feb; 23 (1): 107–12CrossRef
59.
Longo WE, Cheadle W, Fink A, et al. The role of the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in patient care, surgical education, research and faculty development. Am J Surg 2005 Nov; 190 (5): 662–75PubMedCrossRef
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Wishart A. The price of life [television programme]. London: BBC, 2009
66.
67.
68.
Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining competition in health care. Harv Bus Rev 2004 Jun; 82 (6): 64–76, 136PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Using Comparative Effectiveness Research to Inform Policy and Practice in the UK NHS
Past, Present and Future
verfasst von
Kalipso Chalkidou, MD, PhD
Tom Walley
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2010
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 10/2010
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11535260-000000000-00000

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2010

PharmacoEconomics 10/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial

Perspectives on Comparative Effectiveness Research

Policy and Implementation

Comparative Effectiveness Regulations and Pharmaceutical Innovation

Policy and Implementation

Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness Research

Methodological Considerations

No Head-to-Head Trial? Simulate the Missing Arms

Policy and Implementation

The Economics of Comparative Effectiveness Studies

Industry Perspectives

Comparative Effectiveness Research and Personalized Medicine