Future directions for cardiovascular disease comparative effectiveness research: report of a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305-5405, USA.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 15.34). 06/2012; 60(7):569-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.12.057
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Comparative effectiveness research (CER) aims to provide decision makers with the evidence needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of alternative clinical management strategies. CER has become a national priority, with considerable new research funding allocated. Cardiovascular disease is a priority area for CER. This workshop report provides an overview of CER methods, with an emphasis on practical clinical trials and observational treatment comparisons. The report also details recommendations to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for a new framework for evidence development to foster cardiovascular CER, and specific studies to address 8 clinical issues identified by the Institute of Medicine as high priorities for cardiovascular CER.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When studying the causal effect of drug use in observational data, marginal structural modeling (MSM) can be used to adjust for time-dependent confounders that are affected by previous treatment. The objective of this study was to compare traditional Cox proportional hazard models (with and without time-dependent covariates) with MSM to study causal effects of time-dependent drug use. The example of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins was examined using up to 17.7 years of follow-up from 4,654 participants of the observational prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. In the MSM model, the weight was based on measurements of established cardiovascular risk factors and co-morbidity. In general, we could not demonstrate important differences in results from the Cox models and MSM. Results from analysis on duration of statin use suggested that substantial residual confounding by indication was not accounted for during the period shortly after statin initiation. In conclusion, although on theoretical grounds MSM is an elegant technique, lack of data on the precise time-dependent confounders, such as indication of treatment or other considerations of the prescribing physician jeopardizes the calculation of valid weights. Confounding remains a hurdle in observational effectiveness research on preventive drugs with a multitude of prescription determinants.
    European Journal of Epidemiology 09/2014; · 5.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background-Aspirin for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is only recommended for individuals at high risk for CHD although the majority of CHD events occur in individuals who are at low to intermediate risk.Methods and Results-To estimate the potential of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring to guide aspirin use for primary prevention of CHD, we studied 4229 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis who were not on aspirin at baseline and were free of diabetes mellitus. Using data from median 7.6-year follow-up, 5-year number-needed-to-treat estimations were calculated by applying an 18% relative CHD reduction to the observed event rates. This was contrasted to 5-year number-needed-to-harm estimations based on the risk of major bleeding reported in an aspirin meta-analysis. Results were stratified by a 10% 10-year CHD Framingham Risk Score (FRS). Individuals with CAC≥100 had an estimated net benefit with aspirin regardless of their traditional risk status (estimated 5-year number needed to treat of 173 for individuals <10% FRS and 92 for individuals ≥10% FRS, estimated 5-year number needed to harm of 442 for a major bleed). Conversely, individuals with zero CAC had unfavorable estimations (estimated 5-year number needed to treat of 2036 for individuals <10% FRS and 808 for individuals ≥10% FRS, estimated 5-year number needed to harm of 442 for a major bleed). Sex-specific and age-stratified analyses showed similar results.Conclusions-For the primary prevention of CHD, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis participants with CAC≥100 had favorable risk/benefit estimations for aspirin use while participants with zero CAC were estimated to receive net harm from aspirin.
    Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 05/2014; · 5.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: The Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes (TIMACS) trial demonstrated that early invasive intervention (within 24 hours) was similar to a delayed approach (after 36 hours) overall but improved outcomes were seen in patients at high-risk. However, the cost implications of an early versus delayed invasive strategy are unknown. Methods and results: A third-party perspective of direct cost was chosen and United States Medicare costs were calculated using average diagnosis related grouping (DRG) units. Direct medical costs included those of the index hospitalization (including clinical, procedural and hospital stay costs) as well as major adverse cardiac events during 6 months of follow-up. Sensitivity and sub-group analyses were performed. The average total cost per patient in the early intervention group was lower compared with the delayed intervention group (-$1170; 95% CI -$2542 to $202). From the bootstrap analysis (5000 replications), the early invasive approach was associated with both lower costs and better clinical outcomes regarding death/myocardial infarction(MI)/stroke in 95.1% of the cases (dominant strategy). In high-risk patients (GRACE score ≥ 141), the net reduction in cost was greatest (-$3720; 95% CI -$6270 to -$1170). Bootstrap analysis revealed 99.8% of cases were associated with both lower costs and better clinical outcomes (death/MI/stroke). Limitations: We were unable to evaluate the effect of community care and investigations without hospitalization (office visits, non-invasive testing, etc). Medication costs were not captured. Indirect costs such as loss of productivity and family care were not included. Conclusions: An early invasive management strategy is as effective as a delayed approach and is likely to be less costly in most patients with acute coronary syndromes.
    Journal of Medical Economics 04/2014;