Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 97
5
Priorities for Study
abstract: The Institute of Medicine Committee on Comparative Effective-
ness Research Prioritization was charged with developing a portfolio of
priority topics that reflected balance across research areas, populations,
type of interventions, and methodologies. The final list of 00 prior-
ity CER topics includes a large number addressing health care delivery
systems, and a large number that consider racial and ethnic disparities.
All but of the originally delineated research areas are represented.
Similarly, the priority research topics include studies examining various
special population categories, including individuals with rare diseases. This
chapter presents the full list of priority CER topics.
As explained in detail in Chapter 1, the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
committee’s statement of task charged the committee with developing a list
of priority comparative effectiveness research (CER) topics and presenting
those recommendations for the Secretary to consider. To develop the list,
the committee obtained substantial public input (described in Chapter 3)
and followed a multistage process of individual and collective deliberation
(described in Chapter 4). The final portfolio, described in this chapter,
contains 100 priority topics. The first half of the chapter is a “portfolio
analysis,” which shows the representation of research areas, study popula-
tions, comparators, and study methodologies within the final 100 topics.
The second half of the chapter presents the specific CER topics prioritized
by the committee, together with a description of their relevance.
OCR for page 98
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
ASSEMbLING A DIvERSE PORTFOLIO
As described in Chapter 4, the committee utilized the concept of a
diverse research portfolio, meaning that the committee’s priority topics
reflect a balance of CER questions across research area (i.e., disorders by
organ systems, specific populations, systems of care), study populations
(i.e., men, women, children, minority groups), types of interventions (i.e.,
comparators, such as surgical or pharmaceutical treatments), and study
methodologies (i.e., randomized controlled trials, registry studies, system-
atic reviews). The committee wanted to ensure that the final list of topics
represents not only those diseases and conditions with the greatest effects
on the health of the U.S. population, but also that it includes other diseases
and conditions that disproportionately and seriously affect subgroups of
the population (such as women, minorities, and children and adolescents).
In addition, the committee wanted to ensure its priority topics examine a
variety of interventions, including studies examining prevention, systems
of care, pharmacological treatments, devices, surgery, and monitoring of
disease. The committee also sought to achieve balance in the distribution
of proposed methodologies so that some answers could be obtained within
the 2-year framework specified by the American Recovery and Reinvest-
ment Act (ARRA) of 2009, while other research questions would require a
longer timeframe. For example, CER conducted from established databases
and from systematic reviews of the current literature holds the potential to
provide information relatively rapidly, whereas performance of randomized
controlled clinical trials or prospective observational trials would extend
well beyond the 2-year focus of the ARRA.
The committee strongly believes that CER should be conducted us-
ing “real-world” patients, so that results are readily generalizable across
populations. Therefore, it is important that sponsors design CER studies to
ensure adequate numbers of all relevant population and patient subgroups,
including all genders and patients representing a wide range of races, eth-
nicities, levels of health literacy, and ages, as well as those with multiple
chronic conditions.
The following sections conduct a “portfolio analysis”—an analysis
of the distribution of the committee’s final 100 priority topics across the
portfolio variables, including (1) research areas, (2) study populations, (3)
interventions, and (4) study methodologies. A successful portfolio is one
that is widely distributed across these dimensions. It is important to recog-
nize that the precision of the information in this section was limited by the
procedures that were required to meet the committee’s deadline. In the fu-
ture, thorough topic nomination development requires interaction with the
nominators and other stakeholders to sufficiently develop the nomination
OCR for page 99
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
and to ensure that the supporting evidence accurately conveys the context
and the main points of the nomination (Whitlock et al., 2009).
The following sections display the distribution of the committee’s pri-
ority list by the portfolio criteria: research area, population, intervention,
and methodology. In addition, an interactive electronic file providing search
capabilities for priority topics by portfolio criteria is available at www.
iom.edu/cerpriorities. This spreadsheet will allow the reader to search, for
example, all cardiovascular disease topics affecting women and children, or
to study the effectiveness of procedures for their treatment. The search will
also indicate which quartile the committee assigned each topic.
DIvERSITy OF RESEARCH AREAS
As described earlier, one of the committee’s main methods of catego-
rizing the proposed priority topics was by research area. The committee
identified 32 categories of research areas based on disease classification,
other patient conditions, and systems of care.1 However, because many of
the conditions co-occur frequently (e.g., obesity and osteoarthritis), and
many of the nominated priorities mentioned both a disease and a system of
care (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease and nursing home care), most of the priority
topics could be classified according to two or more research areas.2 For
example, a topic to study alternative strategies for treating heart disease
in African American patients with diabetes could have been classified as
cardiovascular disease, endocrinology (which includes diabetes care), and
racial and ethnic disparities. In addition, if that research question involved
comparing alternative organizational approaches to care, such as coordi-
nated disease management programs or remote monitoring of patients’
symptoms, the topic could also be classified under the health care delivery
system area. In fact, among the final 100 priority topics, the average num-
ber of assignable research categories was three.
To determine whether the committee’s priority list was balanced across
research areas, each priority was categorized by all of the possible research
areas that reasonably described it. For the purposes of this exercise, one area
was designated as the primary topic. Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 show the
breakdown of the 100 final priority topics categorized by research area. In
Table 5-1, the topic’s primary research area is shown with assigned second-
ary research areas, if reported. Several areas are prominently represented.
1 Refer to Chapter 3 to see how the committee developed the list of 32 research area
categories.
2 In the classification exercise that took place at each stage of the IOM committee’s delibera-
tions, however, each nominated recommendation was placed into only one area, which was
considered its primary research area.
OCR for page 100
00 INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
TAbLE 5-1 Recommended Research Priorities by Research Area
Primary Secondary
Research Research
Category Area Area Total
Health Care Delivery Systems* 23 27 50
Racial and Ethnic Disparities 3 26 29
Cardiovascular and Peripheral Vascular Disease 8 13 21
Geriatrics 2 19 21
Functional Limitations and Disabilities 2 20 22
Neurologic Disorders 6 11 17
Psychiatric Disorders 7 10 17
Pediatrics 1 15 16
Endocrinology and Metabolism Disorders 2 12 14
Musculoskeletal Disorders 5 7 12
Oncology and Hematology 6 5 11
Women’s Health 5 2 7
Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose 2 4 6
Infectious Diseases 3 2 5
Skin Disorders 3 1 4
Birth and Developmental Disorders 3 1 4
Nutrition (including obesity) 3 1 4
Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint 1 3 4
Disorders
Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat Disorders 2 1 3
Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care 1 2 3
Medicine
Complementary and Alternative Medicine 3 0 3
Kidney and Urinary Tract Disorders 2 1 3
Oral Health 2 1 3
Respiratory Disease 1 2 3
Genetics and Disease 0 3 3
Gastrointestinal System Disorders 1 1 2
Palliative and End-of-Life Care 2 0 2
Sexual Function and Reproductive Disorders 0 2 2
Liver and Biliary Tract Disorders 1 1 2
Total 100 193 293
*Although this category was described as “Safety and Quality of Health Care” in the web-
based questionnaire, the category was re-labeled by the committee as “Health Care Delivery
Systems” to be more accurate.
OCR for page 101
Number of Priority Topics
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Health Delivery
Disparities
Disabilities
Cardiovascular
Geriatrics
Psychiatry
Neurology
Pediatrics
Endocrinology
Musculoskeletal
Oncology/Hematology
Women's Health
Substance Abuse
Infectious Diseases
Developmental
R01511
Rheumatology
Figure 5-1
Nutrition
priorities Area
Dermatology
Complementary/Alternative
EENT
Genetics
Primary Research Area
Genitourinary
Secondary Research Area
Oral Health
Respiratory
Emergency/Critical Care
Gastrointestinal
FIGuRE 5-1 Distribution of the recommended research Researchby primary and secondary research areas.
Hepatobiliary
End-of-Life Care
Reproduction
0
OCR for page 102
0 INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
Half of all topics involve a comparison to some aspect of the health care de-
livery system. 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 in this area, as well as the committee’s be-
lief that an early investment in CER should focus on learning how to make
services more effective. Nearly one-third of the total recommended topics in-
volve research that addresses racial and ethnic disparities and nearly one-fifth
address functional limitations and disabilities. Other frequently represented
areas are cardiovascular disease, geriatrics, psychiatric disorders, neurologic
disorders, and pediatrics.
Twenty-nine out of the original 32 research areas are represented in the
final portfolio. The missing categories include medical aspects of bioterror-
ism, pancreatic disorders, and regenerative medicine. The fact that there are
no topics from any of these categories in the final list is less of a reflection
of these categories’ importance than of the fact that these categories only
received 2 nominations out of the total 1,268 topics that entered the first
round of voting and that the committee did not score the particular topics
nominated within these categories as highly as topics in other categories.
The portfolio’s inclusion of 29 out of the original 32 research areas suggests
that an investment in CER based on the committee’s portfolio recommen-
dations would comprehensively explore a broad spectrum of disease. It is
interesting to note that, when asked for input, the public responded with
recommendations that spanned a full portfolio of research areas.3
DIvERSITy OF POPuLATIONS
A balanced portfolio should include a consideration of the demo-
graphic characteristics of the populations and subpopulations to be stud-
ied, including minority, racial, and ethnic groups; gender; and different
age groups ranging from infancy to the elderly. It should also consider
less obvious factors that affect health care, such as geographic location,
socioeconomic status, educational achievement, and cultural differences;
and it should be proportionately representative of those factors. Table 5-2
displays the 100 final priority topics categorized by study population. Many
of the nominators of the priority topics selected more than one population
as appropriate for the proposed research. Adults, including the elderly and
the general population, are the most frequently represented study popula-
tions in the committee’s portfolio. Other populations well represented in
3 As discussed in Chapter 3, 82 percent of the committee’s final priority list were nominated
by the public; 18 percent were nominated by the committee during its in-depth discussion of
the priority list.
OCR for page 103
0
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-2 Committee’s Recommended Research Priorities by Study
Populations
Study Population Number of Topics
Adults (including elderly) 36
Population at Large (general population) 28
Women 27
Special Populations (e.g., pregnant women, low income, patients with 24
disabilities)
Men 22
Children and Adolescents Only 20
Elderly Only 15
Other 12
Long-Term Care 7
Ethnic Subpopulations Only 5
Adults (excluding elderly) 4
Rare Diseases 2
Total 202
NOTE: The total exceeds the total number of priority topics because respondents were al-
lowed to select multiple populations for each topic.
the committee’s portfolio are women, special populations (such as pregnant
women and low-income families and individuals), men, and children and
adolescents.
Based on the answers to the open-ended questions given by the ques-
tionnaire respondents, the “other” category in the table encompasses a wide
variety of study populations, such as those with chronic conditions, cancer
survivors, persons with psychiatric and mental disabilities, and persons at
risk of developing heart disease.
DIvERSITy OF INTERvENTIONS
Another component of a balanced portfolio is that it should cover all
steps in the trajectory of health care, from prevention and screening to
diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic health problems to palliative
and end-of-life care. It should also reflect the full range of care modalities,
from behavioral changes to pharmacological treatment to radiation to sur-
gery. Table 5-3 displays the 100 final priority topics categorized by type of
intervention or strategy proposed for the CER study. Types of comparators
represented in the portfolio range from institutional and organization-
based, such as management and delivery of health care, to patient-centered
interventions. The patient-centered interventions range from completely
OCR for page 104
0 INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
TAbLE 5-3 Committee’s Recommended Research Priorities by Types of
Intervention
Types of Interventions Number of Topics
Systems of Care 43
Pharmacological Treatment 36
Standard of Care 33
Behavioral Treatment 29
Prevention 24
Procedures 23
Provider-Patient Relationships 20
Treatment Pathways 19
Testing, Monitoring, and Evaluation 17
Devices 13
Alternative Treatment 9
Other 18
Total 284
NOTE: The total exceeds the total number of priority topics because respondents were al-
lowed to select multiple interventions to be compared for each topic.
noninvasive approaches, such as ways to persuade patients to adopt health-
ier behavior, to major surgical procedures.
The interventions most strongly represented in the committee’s port-
folio are systems of care, pharmacologic treatment, and standard of care
comparisons. Other frequently proposed types of interventions include
behavioral treatments, disease prevention modalities, medical or surgical
procedures (including radiological procedures), provider-patient forms of
communication or other features of provider-patient relations, and treat-
ment pathways (or clinical guidelines).
The list includes a broad array of diagnostic and therapeutic actions
taken by primary care physicians and specialists. It also includes actions
taken by other health professionals, ancillary service providers, administra-
tors, and, importantly, health care leaders—for example, professional as-
sociations that develop treatment pathways. The “other” category includes
interventions such as complementary care and economic incentives.
DIvERSITy OF STuDy METHODOLOGIES
Table 5-4 displays the division of the 100 final priority topics by study
methodology. The four major methodologies identified by the committee
as appropriate for CER are well represented on the committee’s portfolio.
Thus, the committee’s portfolio provides a list of CER questions that vary
OCR for page 105
0
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-4 Committee’s Recommended Research Priorities by Study
Methodology
Methodology Number of Topics
Randomized Trial 49
Prospective Observational Study 46
Database Research 27
Systematic Review 23
TOTAL 145
NOTE: The total exceeds the total number of priority topics because respondents were al-
lowed to select multiple methodologies for each topic.
widely in terms of resource requirements, timelines, and types of infra-
structure necessary to conduct the research. For example, a database study
using existing databases could be performed more rapidly and economically
than a randomized clinical trial, but its findings and conclusions may be
less definitive. The appropriate choice of method depends on the nature of
the research, on whether the intervention is currently in use, on whether
sufficient data are available to identify a large group of persons receiving
the intervention and suitable unbiased comparator groups, and whether a
range of patient outcomes is recorded.
INTRODuCTION TO FINAL LIST OF PRIORITy TOPICS
In preparing the list for presentation in this report, the committee
refined the wording of each priority topic to fit a common format that
indicates the research area, two or more interventions to be compared, the
population, and, where appropriate and feasible, the outcomes of interest.
The committee did not attempt to change the essence of the research ques-
tion, or to change or add specific outcomes, nor did the committee attempt
to refine the topics by specifying methodologies or comparators that the
nominator did not provide. The committee fully anticipates that funding
agencies, when preparing their Requests for Applications based on these
priority topics, will provide details on the scope of the clinical problem,
the current best practices, and the potential alternative approaches. It is
ultimately the responsibility of the research teams applying for funding to
propose the precise population, comparators, outcomes, and methodologies
to be undertaken in the studies attempting to answer the priority questions.
Moreover, a single priority topic is likely to generate alternative designs, so
the committee’s 100 priorities will likely provide the opportunity for many
more than 100 specific research studies.
OCR for page 106
0 INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
BOX 5-1
Round 3 Voting Procedures
One hundred fifty-five nominated research topics were considered in the
committee’s third round of voting. Each committee member was allocated 300
total points to distribute among the 155 topics but could not award more than 30
points to any one topic. The mean score for each topic was calculated by dividing
the total points that each topic received by the number of committee members
voting. The raw scores were reviewed by the committee, and the distribution of
the scores provided a natural cutoff at 100 topics. The top 100 topics all received
a mean of at least 1.0 points.
TAbLE 5-5 Results of the IOM Committee’s Final Vote for Priority
Topics, by Quartile
Range
Standard
Quartile Mean Score Deviation Low High
1 4.6 1.0 3.5 7.4
2 2.9 0.3 2.5 3.4
3 2.0 0.3 1.5 2.4
4 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.4
The voting process (described in detail in Chapter 4) introduced a sub-
stantial degree of subjectivity and variable weighting of topics. The com-
mittee felt that this imprecision reduced the reliability of relative rankings.
Therefore, the 100 priority topics are presented grouped into quartiles,
listed alphabetically by primary area of research.4 The first quartile contains
all topics with a mean score between 3.5 and 7.4 (see Box 5-1 for a brief
recap of how the voting was conducted). The second quartile contains all
topics with a mean score between 2.5 and 3.5. The third quartile contains
all topics with a mean score between 1.5 and 2.5. The fourth quartile con-
tains all topics with a mean score between 1 and 1.5. Refer to Table 5-5 to
see the variability and ranges of the committee’s votes across quartile. Table
5-6 displays the 100 priority topics by quartile. The medical terminology
used in the list of priorities is defined in Appendix E.
4 Note that 55 of the 155 nominated recommendations that appeared on the final ballot
did not score high enough to be included in the final list. These 55 items are not represented
in the quartiles.
OCR for page 107
0
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-6 Final List of Priority Topics, by Quartile Ratings
*display within quartile does not indicate priority rank—topics are listed
alphabetically by primary research area
First Quartile
(listed alphabetically by primary research area)
CAD Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation including
surgery, catheter ablation, and pharmacologic treatment.
DIS Compare the effectiveness of the different treatments (e.g., assistive
listening devices, cochlear implants, electric-acoustic devices, habilitation
and rehabilitation methods [auditory/oral, sign language, and total
communication]) for hearing loss in children and adults, especially individuals
with diverse cultural, language, medical, and developmental backgrounds.
ENDO Compare the effectiveness of primary prevention methods, such as exercise and
balance training, versus clinical treatments in preventing falls in older adults at
varying degrees of risk.
GI Compare the effectiveness of upper endoscopy utilization and frequency for
patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease on morbidity, quality of life, and
diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
HCDS Compare the effectiveness of dissemination and translation techniques to
facilitate the use of CER by patients, clinicians, payers, and others.
HCDS Compare the effectiveness of comprehensive care coordination programs, such
as the medical home, and usual care in managing children and adults with
severe chronic disease, especially in populations with known health disparities.
IMUN Compare the effectiveness of different strategies of introducing biologics into
the treatment algorithm for inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s disease,
ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.
INFD Compare the effectiveness of various screening, prophylaxis, and treatment
interventions in eradicating methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
in communities, institutions, and hospitals.
INFD Compare the effectiveness of strategies (e.g., bio-patches, reducing central
line entry, chlorhexidine for all line entries, antibiotic impregnated catheters,
treating all line entries via a sterile field) for reducing health care associated
infections (HAI), including catheter-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator
associated pneumonia, and surgical site infections in children and adults.
KUT Compare the effectiveness of management strategies for localized prostate
cancer (e.g., active surveillance, radical prostatectomy [conventional, robotic,
and laparoscopic], and radiotherapy [conformal, brachytherapy, proton-beam,
and intensity-modulated radiotherapy]) on survival, recurrence, side effects,
quality of life, and costs.
continued
OCR for page 128
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
disease management strategies on the efficiency and value of pharmacologi-
cal treatments (ENDO-D). There are multiple other topics that affect the
elderly population; these topics are listed according to the specific organ
system or disease area to which they pertain.
birth and Developmental Disorders
The uncertainty surrounding the root causes of social-emotional dis-
orders in infants and toddlers, as well as autism spectrum disorder, has
resulted in a lack of effective treatment options for these individuals. As a
result, AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program recommended this as a na-
tional priority area for CER (Whitlock et al., 2009). The final list includes
two priority topics focused on identifying effective treatment strategies for
these disorders (BDEV-A–B) (Table 5-16). With the remarkable improve-
ment in survival and attendant costs for premature infants, the impact of
support programs on child and family outcomes after a child is discharged
from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (BDEV-C) was felt to be of sig-
nificant value. For specific topics related to pregnancy, refer to the Women’s
Health category.
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
The widespread use of complementary and alternative methodologies
(including yoga, meditation, acupuncture, and nutriceuticals [CAM-A–C])
in managing a broad array of disorders (e.g., anxiety and depression, pain,
cardiovascular risk factors, chronic diseases, other prevalent conditions)
TAbLE 5-16 Birth and Developmental Disorders Priority Topics
BDEV-A Compare the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies (e.g., behavioral or
pharmacologic interventions, the combination of the two) for different
autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at different levels of severity and stages of
intervention.
BDEV-B Compare the effectiveness of the co-location model (psychological and
primary care practitioners practicing together) and usual care (identification
by primary care practitioner and referral to community-based mental health
services) in identifying and treating social-emotional and developmental
disorders in children ages 0-3.
BDEV-C Compare the effectiveness of diverse models of comprehensive support
services for infants and their families following discharge from a neonatal
intensive care unit.
OCR for page 129
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-17 Complementary and Alternative Medicine Priority Topics
CAM-A Compare the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., yoga,
meditation, deep breathing training) and usual care in treating anxiety and
depression, pain, cardiovascular risk factors, and chronic diseases.
CAM-B Compare the effectiveness of acupuncture for various indications using a
cluster randomized trial.
CAM-C Compare the effectiveness of dietary supplements (nutriceuticals) and usual
care in the treatment of selected high-prevalence conditions.
provides the impetus to compare their effectiveness to more conventional
approaches to care (Table 5-17).
Nutrition
Obesity is a growing epidemic with medical consequences that extend
to multiple chronic conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, heart dis-
ease, and arthritis. Within the medical community, there is currently uncer-
tainty regarding effective strategies for preventing and treating obesity. The
committee recommended priorities that compare strategies for improving
social conditions to reduce obesity (NUTR-A), including various school
policies (NUTR-B) (Table 5-18). Both of these priorities include a focus on
populations with varying risk rates. Identifying effective methods for treat-
ing obese populations could significantly improve health in this country. As
such, the committee recommends comparing the effectiveness of surgical
procedures, such as bariatric surgery (gastric bypass), behavior modifica-
tion, and medication (NUTR-C).
Racial and Ethnic Disparities
Disparities in access to care and in clinical outcomes between different
populations were of considerable concern for the committee. Some minority
populations, such as African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Latinos,
and Native Americans, have higher rates of chronic diseases and also expe-
rience greater barriers to obtaining care. Together, these factors contribute
to creating disparities in health status and clinical outcomes. The commit-
tee recommends comparing the effectiveness of several strategies aimed
at reducing these disparities, including community-based and multi-level
interventions (RED-A), providing literacy sensitive disease management
programs (RED-B), and strategies to improve engagement and retention
(RED-C) (Table 5-19).
OCR for page 130
0 INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
TAbLE 5-18 Nutrition Priority Topics
NUTR-A Compare the effectiveness of various strategies (e.g., clinical interventions,
selected social interventions [such as improving the built environment in
communities and making healthy foods more available], combined clinical
and social interventions) to prevent obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and
heart disease in at-risk populations such as the urban poor and American
Indians.
NUTR-B Compare the effectiveness of school-based interventions involving meal
programs, vending machines, and physical education, at different levels of
intensity, in preventing and treating overweight and obesity in children and
adolescents.
NUTR-C Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for obesity (e.g., bariatric
surgery, behavioral interventions, pharmacologic treatment) on the
resolution of obesity-related outcomes such as diabetes, hypertension, and
musculoskeletal disorders.
Skin Disorders
Skin disorders across the country are widespread, cause a high degree
of morbidity, and are among the most costly disorders in children and ado-
lescents between ages 1 and 17 (AHRQ, 2009a,b,c). The committee’s priori-
ties on skin disorders include chronic conditions such as lower extremity
wounds (common complications in patients with diabetes, peripheral vascu-
lar disease, and paralysis) (SKIN-A), and acne—specifically comparing the
long-term safety and effectiveness of alternative treatments (SKIN-B) (Table
5-20). Another topic focused on reducing skin disease and comparing treat-
ments to improve quality of life for chronic psoriatic disease (SKIN-C).
TAbLE 5-19 Race and Ethnic Disparities Priority Topics
RED-A Compare the effectiveness of interventions (e.g., community-based multi-
level interventions, simple health education, usual care) to reduce health
disparities in cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, musculoskeletal
diseases, and birth outcomes.
RED-B Compare the effectiveness of literacy-sensitive disease management programs
and usual care in reducing disparities in children and adults with low
literacy and chronic disease (e.g., heart disease).
RED-C Compare the effectiveness of different strategies to engage and retain
patients in care and to delineate barriers to care, especially for members of
populations that experience health disparities.
OCR for page 131
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-20 Skin Disorders Priority Topics
SKIN-A Compare the effectiveness of topical treatments (e.g., antibiotics, platelet-
derived growth factor) and systemic therapies (e.g., negative pressure wound
therapy, hyperbaric oxygen) in managing chronic lower extremity wounds.
SKIN-B Compare the effectiveness of different long-term treatments for acne.
SKIN-C Compare the effectiveness (including effects on quality of life) of treatment
strategies (e.g., topical steroids, ultraviolet light, methotrexate, biologic
response modifiers) for psoriasis.
Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose
The harms of tobacco smoking are well known and well documented.
Yet, roughly one-fifth of the nation’s population continues to smoke. The
committee recommended that a national priority for comparative effective-
ness should be to examine alternative smoking cessation strategies in un-
derstudied populations such as minorities, individuals with mental illness,
and adolescents (ADDO-A) (Table 5-21). The Cochrane Collaboration and
Healthy People 00 also include tobacco use as national priorities (Doyle
et al., 2005; HHS, 2000).
The increasing prevalence of abuse of and dependency on pain medica-
tions led the committee to recommend an examination of treatment and
prescribing practices to reduce substance dependence for patients with non-
cancer chronic pain and acute pain (ADDO-B).
Functional Limitations and Disabilities
While many of the committee’s priority topics affect patients with dis-
abilities, the following topics specifically address two populations: (1) the
TAbLE 5-21 Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose Priority
Topics
ADDO-A Compare the effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies (e.g., medication,
individual or quitline counseling, combinations of these) in smokers from
understudied populations such as minorities, individuals with mental illness,
and adolescents.
ADDO-B Compare the effectiveness of different opioid and non-opioid pain relievers,
in different doses and durations, in avoiding unintentional overdose and
substance dependence among subjects with acute and non-cancer chronic
pain.
OCR for page 132
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
TAbLE 5-22 Functional Limitations and Disability Priority Topics
DIS-A Compare the effectiveness of the different treatments (e.g., assistive
listening devices, cochlear implants, electric-acoustic devices, habilitation
and rehabilitation methods [auditory/oral, sign language, and total
communication]) for hearing loss in children and adults, especially
individuals with diverse cultural, language, medical, and developmental
backgrounds.
DIS-B Compare the effectiveness of focused intense periodic therapy and usual
weekly therapy in managing cerebral palsy in children.
hearing-impaired, and (2) children with cerebral palsy (Table 5-22). The
committee recommended one priority focus on treatment strategies for
hearing loss among those with diverse cultural/linguistic and medical/de-
velopmental backgrounds (DIS-A) and another on usual care compared
to focused and intense periodic therapy sessions to manage symptoms re-
lated to cerebral palsy (DIS-B).
Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat Disorders
The committee included two topics on eye disorders: (1) comparing
the effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies for diabetic retinopathy,
macular degeneration, and retinal vein occlusion (EENT-A), and (2) com-
paring strategies for treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (EENT-B),
including a focus on minority populations (Table 5-23).
Kidney and urinary Tract Disorders
The committee identified prostate cancer and renal replacement thera-
pies as priority areas for comparative effectiveness research (Table 5-24).
Because prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men
TAbLE 5-23 Ears, Eyes, Nose, and Throat Disorders Priority Topics
EENT-A Compare the effectiveness of different treatment options (e.g., laser therapy,
intravitreal steroids, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF]) for
diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and retinal vein occlusion.
EENT-B Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for primary open-angle
glaucoma (e.g., initial laser surgery, new surgical techniques, new medical
treatments) particularly in minority populations to assess clinical and patient-
reported outcomes.
OCR for page 133
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-24 Kidney and Urinary Tract Disorders Priority Topics
KUT-A Compare the effectiveness of management strategies for localized prostate
cancer (e.g., active surveillance, radical prostatectomy [conventional, robotic,
and laparoscopic], and radiotherapy [conformal, brachytherapy, proton-
beam, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy]) on survival, recurrence, side
effects, quality of life, and costs.
KUT-B Compare the effectiveness (including survival, hospitalization, quality of life,
and costs) of renal replacement therapies (e.g., daily home hemodialysis,
intermittent home hemodialysis, conventional in-center dialysis, continuous
ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, renal transplantation) for patients of different
ages, races, and ethnicities.
(U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2009), the committee recommended
that all aspects of managing the disease be studied (KUT-A).
Renal failure is among the leading causes of mortality across all age
groups (Kung et al., 2008). It is also one of the most costly diseases in
adults over 65 years of age (AHRQ, 2009a). As such, the committee
recommended comparing alternative renal replacement therapies with an
emphasis on determining the effectiveness differences among different ages,
race, and ethnicities (KUT-B).
Oral Health
The committee recommended two priority topics within oral health
for CER, one comparing prevention to surgery in adults with periodontal
disease (ORAL-A), and the other in children comparing delivery model ap-
proaches for preventing dental caries (cavities) (ORAL-B) (Table 5-25).
Palliative and End-of-Life Care
Effective management and delivery of palliative and end-of-life care is a
challenge as the elderly population grows in the United States. Palliative and
TAbLE 5-25 Oral Health Priority Topics
ORAL-A Compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical care and a medical
model of prevention and care in managing periodontal disease to increase
tooth longevity and reduce systemic secondary effects in other organ systems.
ORAL-B Compare the effectiveness of the various delivery models (e.g., primary care,
dental offices, schools, mobile vans) in preventing dental caries in children.
OCR for page 134
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
TAbLE 5-26 Palliative and End-of-Life Care Priority Topics
PELC-A Compare the effectiveness of coordinated care (supported by reimbursement
innovations) and usual care in long-term and end-of-life care of the elderly.
PELC-B Compare the effectiveness of hospital-based palliative care and usual care on
patient-reported outcomes and cost.
end-of-life care services must be effective for a variety of populations, and
in a variety of environments, including hospitals, long-term care facilities,
and homes. The committee specifically recommends research comparing
strategies to improve delivery of long-term and end-of-life care, including
reimbursement models to support coordinated care (PELC-A) and compar-
ing hospital-based palliative care services with standard care to standard
care alone (PELC-B) (Table 5-26).
Gastrointestinal System Disorders
Disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract, such as gastroesophageal
reflux disease (GERD), are among the most prevalent disorders in the na-
tion, and they are particularly prevalent among the elderly (AHRQ, 2009c).
They are also among the most costly conditions for infants less than 1 year
old (AHRQ, 2009a). The committee specifically recommends the research
of the effects of endoscopy on the management and outcomes of patients
with GERD as a priority (GI-A) (Table 5-27).
Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint Disorders
Conditions of the immune system, connective tissue, and joints such as
arthritis and connective tissue disorders are some of the most prevalent and
costly diseases in all age groups, especially in the elderly (AHRQ, 2009a,c).
Both AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program and Healthy People 00 list
arthritis and non-traumatic joint disorders as national research priorities
(HHS, 2000; Whitlock et al., 2009). The committee recommended com-
paring the effectiveness of different strategies, including biologics, in the
treatment of these diseases (IMUN-A) (Table 5-28).
TAbLE 5-27 Gastrointestinal System Disorders Priority Topics
GI-A Compare the effectiveness of upper endoscopy utilization and frequency for
patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease on morbidity, quality of life, and
diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
OCR for page 135
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
TAbLE 5-28 Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint Disorders
Priority Topics
IMUN-A Compare the effectiveness of different strategies of introducing biologics
into the treatment algorithm for inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s
disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.
Pediatrics
There are a variety of alternative and pharmacological treatments avail-
able for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but
more research is needed to compare their effectiveness. In fact, AHRQ’s
Effective Health Care Program lists ADHD as a national priority (Whitlock
et al., 2009). The committee recommended more research that addresses the
comparative effectiveness of these treatments in decreasing the symptoms
of ADHD in children (PEDS-A) (Table 5-29). There are a number of other
important pediatric topics that are discussed under the research area catego-
ries eyes, ears, nose and throat; functional limitations and disabilities; birth
and developmental disorders; nutrition; and respiratory disease.
Respiratory Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and asthma are
among the most prevalent, most costly, and morbid conditions for all age
groups (AHRQ, 2009a,c; Kung et al., 2008). Asthma is especially common
in children and is the leading condition in terms of cost (AHRQ, 2009a).
In addition, AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program lists asthma as a pri-
ority research area (Whitlock et al., 2009). The committee recommended
alternative strategies for managing asthma be studied through CER (RD-A)
(Table 5-30).
Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine
Accidents are a leading cause of death for all ages in the United States,
and trauma-related disorders are listed as one of the most prevalent and
TAbLE 5-29 Pediatric Disorders Priority Topics
PEDS-A Compare the effectiveness of various primary care treatment strategies (e.g.,
symptom management, cognitive behavior therapy, biofeedback, social skills,
educator/teacher training, parent training, pharmacologic treatment) for
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.
OCR for page 136
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
TAbLE 5-30 Respiratory Disorders Priority Topics
RD-A Compare the effectiveness of an integrated approach (combining counseling,
environmental mitigation, chronic disease management, and legal assistance)
with a non-integrated episodic care model in managing asthma in children.
TAbLE 5-31 Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine
Priority Topics
TEMC-A Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies (e.g., cognitive behavioral
individual therapy, generic individual therapy, comprehensive and intensive
treatment) for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from diverse sources
of trauma.
costly (AHRQ, 2009a,c). While there are many disorders that arise from
trauma and emergencies, the committee focused on the treatment of Post-
traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in all populations and from all sources
of trauma. With the large number of veterans returning from the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and increased recognition of the inadequacies of the
nation’s health system to effectively treat patients with mental health condi-
tions, it is important to identify effective treatment strategies. The commit-
tee recommended that PTSD be studied as part of a balanced portfolio of
CER (TEMC-A) (Table 5-31).
TIMELINESS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE’S PRIORITy LIST
The committee believes that the priority list presented in this chapter is
relevant to the needs and conditions of today. New questions in CER will
continue to appear. However, the balance of topics across the portfolio,
the correlation with established priorities by other groups, and the good
fit between the topics and the pre-established, pre-specified criteria sug-
gest that the process used by the committee was effective. As discussed in
Chapters 4 and 6, this process requires modification if it is to be continued
in the future.
Recognizing the dynamic nature of disease and the rapid technologic
and therapeutic advancements in health care, these priorities may very well
be answered by ongoing research or be superseded by new disorders in the
near future. In fact, that is the committee’s hope and expectation. Recogni-
tion of priorities and initiation of new research should provide answers to
the clinical dilemmas identified. Therefore, an ongoing and active process
OCR for page 137
PRIORITIES FOR STUDY
of priority setting using stakeholder input is imperative. The previous two
chapters described systems for continuous stakeholder input, together with
methodologies for identifying which of these topics deserve priority. How-
ever, the committee emphasizes the importance of repeating this exercise on
a regular basis or of integrating aspects of the process described here into
the routine determination of CER funding in order to sustain the effort to
discover what works best and for whom.
REFERENCES
AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2009a. Medical Expenditure Panel
Survey. Total expenses for conditions by site of service: United States http://www.meps.
ahrq.gov/mepsweb/ (accessed March 10, 2009).
———. 2009b. Total number of events accounting for expenditures by site of service: United
States, 2006. In Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Component Data.
———. 2009c. Total number of people accounting for expenditures (deduplicated) by site of
service: United States, 2006. In Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Component Data.
AHRQ Effective Health Care Program. 2009. Effective Health Care: Topic triage cover
sheets.
Doyle, J., E. Waters, D. Yach, D. McQueen, A. De Francisco, T. Stewart, P. Reddy, A. M. Gul-
mezoglu, G. Galea, and A. Portela. 2005. Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic
reviews of health promotion and public health research. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health 59:193-197.
HHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2000. Healthy People 00: Understand-
ing and improving health. Place Published: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://purl.
access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS4217 (accessed April 3, 2009).
Kung, H.-C., D. L. Hoyert, J. Xu, S. L. Murphy, and Division of Vital Statistics. 2008.
Deaths: Final data for 00. National vital statistics reports National Center for Health
Statistics.
NPP (National Priorities Partnership). 2008. National priorities and goals. Washington, DC:
National Quality Forum.
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. 2009. United States cancer statistics: 1999–2005
Incidence and mortality web-based report. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.
Wennberg, J. E. 2009 (unpublished). Recommendations to the Institute of Medicine on com-
parative effectiveness research priorities. Submitted in response to a request from the
Institute of Medicine Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization.
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
Whitlock, E. P., S. A. Lopez, S. Chang, M. Helfand, M. Eder, and N. Floyd. 2009. Identifying,
selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ
and the Effective Health Care Program. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/
20090427IdenttifyingTopics.pdf (accessed June 5, 2009).
OCR for page 138
