Comparative effectiveness research and genomic medicine: An evolving partnership for 21st century medicine

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 707-711

  Khoury, Muin J ^a,b   Rich, Eugene C ^c   Randhawa, Gurvaneet ^d   Teutsch, Steven M ^e   Niederhuber, John ^b  

^a NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES   (United States)

^d AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

^e Los Angeles County Department of Public Health   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Evidencebased medicine; Genomics; Medicine

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENOME; GENOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICINE; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POINT OF CARE TESTING;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; GENOMICS; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; MEDICINE;

EID: 70350729454     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b99b90     Document Type: Note

References (48)

1. Grunwald M. How to cut health care costs: less care, more data. Time magazine, June 29, 2009. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ article/0,8599,1905340,00.html. Accessed June 29,2009.
2. Department of Health and Human Services: comparative effectiveness funding. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/index.html. Accessed April 7, 2009.
3. Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Anderson JL, et al; American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee. The American Heart Association's principles for comparative effectiveness research: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2009;119:2955-2962.
4. Friends of Cancer Research. Improved medical decision through comparative effectiveness research cancer as a case study. Available at: http://www.focr.org/ download-repeort-improving-medical-decisions-through- comparative-effective ness-research-cancer-as-a-case-study.html. Accessed May 23, 2009.
5. Avorn J. Debate about funding for comparative effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1927-1929.
6. Institute of Medicine. Comparative effectiveness research prioritization. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/63608.aspx. Accessed May 22, 2009.
7. Feero WG, Guttmacher AE, Collins FS. The genome gets personal-almost. JAMA 2008;299:1351-1352.
8. De Leon J. The potential of genotyping. Science 2008;321:769.
9. Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1925-1927.
10. Tuckson RV. Challenges and opportunities for evidence-based genetics practice. Genet Med 2009;11:1-2.
11. Rich EC. The policy debate over public investment in comparative effectiveness research. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24:752-757.
12. Congressional Budget Office: Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/ doc8891/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2009.
13. 111th Congress of the United States, Washington DC. Conference report to accompany HR 1. 2009 111-116 1, 1-780.
14. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.hhs. gov/recovery/reports/plans/index.html#programs. Accessed May 28, 2009.
15. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2009;290:1624-1632.
16. Zerhouni E. NIH Press release: NIH seeks input on proposed repository for genetic information. Available at: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2006/ od-30.htm. Accessed September 1, 2006.
17. Burke W, Psaty B. Personalized medicine in the era of genomics. JAMA 2007;298:1682-1684.
18. Khoury MJ, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch SM, Bradley LA. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27: 1600-1611.
19. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE. ACCE: a model process for evaluating emerging data on genetic tests. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W, editors. Human genome epidemiology. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004:217-233.
20. Kraft P, Hunter DJ. Genetic risk prediction-are we there yet? N Engl J Med 2009;360:1701-1703.
21. Segal JB, Brotman DJ, Necochea AJ, et al. Predictive value of factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A in adults with venous thromboembolism and in family members of those with a mutation: a systematic review. JAMA 2009;301:2472-2485.
22. Phillips KA. Closing the evidence gap in the use of emerging testing technologies in clinical practice. JAMA 2008;300:2542-2544.
23. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:118-145.
24. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality. HER2 testing to manage patients with breast or other solid tumors. 2008. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/ clinic/tp/her2tp.htm. Accessed April 15, 2009.
25. Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, et al; Couma-Gen Investigators. Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Circulation 2007;116:2563-2570.
26. Kangelaris KN, Bent S, Nussbaum RL, Garcia DA, Tice JA. Genetic testing before anticoagulation? A systematic review of pharmacogenomic dosing of warfarin. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24:656-664.
27. Lackner TA. Pharmacogenomic dosing of warfarin: ready or not? Consult Pharm 2008;23:614-619.
28. Ioannidis JP. Personalized genetic prediction: too limited, too expensive or too soon. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:139-141.
29. Carlsten C, Burke W. Potential for genetics to promote public health: genetics research on smoking suggests caution about expectations. JAMA 2006;296:2480-2482.
30. EGAPP-Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.egappreviews.org/. Accessed February 25, 2009.
31. The Community Guide. Available at: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/ index.html. Accessed April 8, 2009.
32. Agency for HealthCare Research Quality: US Preventive Services Task Force (USPTSF). Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm. Accessed April 8, 2009.
33. EGAPP working group-recommendation statements. Genet Med 2009;11: 15-73.
34. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki G, et al; EGAPP Working Group. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP working group. Genet Med 2009;11:3-14.
35. The Brookings Institution: implementing comparative effectiveness research: priorities, methods, impact. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/ media/ Files/events/2009/0609-health-care-cer/20090609-health-care-cer.pdf Accessed June 29, 2009.
36. BIGHealth consortium. Available at: http://www.bighealthconsortium.org/. Accessed April 8, 2009.
37. Woodcock J. The human genome and translational research: how much evidence is enough? Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;37:1616-1618.
38. Hudson K. The health benefits of genomics: out with the old, in with the new. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;37:1612-1615.
39. Califf RM, Ginsburg GS. Organizational improvements to enhance modern clinical epidemiology. JAMA 2008;300:2300-2302
40. Agency for HealthCare Research Quality: infrastructure to monitor utilization and outcomes for gene-based technologies (2008). Available at: http:// effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype=nr&ProcessID = 63. Accessed April 8, 2009.
41. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Research Network. Available at: http:// crn.cancer.gov/. Accessed April 8, 2009.
42. Public Population Project in Genomics. Available at: P3G consortium http:// www.p3gconsortium.org/. Accessed April 8, 2009.
43. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality. Computer-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools for gene-based tests used in breast cancer. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthIn 68. Accessed September 29, 2008.
44. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality. Distributed Network for Ambulatory Research in Therapeutics (DARTNet). Available at: http://effective healthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype =nr&ProcessID = 53. Accessed April 15, 2009.
45. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality. Developing a Distributed Research Network to Conduct Population-based Studies and Safety Surveillance. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype= nr&ProcessID=54). Accessed April 15, 2009.
46. Kowawoto K, Lobach DF, Willard HF, Ginsburg GS. A national clinical decision support infrastructure to enable the widespread and consistent practice of genomic and personalized medicine. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009;9:17.
47. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). Available at: http://cisnet.cancer.gov/. Accessed April 8, 2009.
48. National Cancer Institute. Request for Applications in comparative effectiveness research in genomic and personalized medicine. Available at: http://www. cancer.gov/pdf/recovery/004-cer-personalized-medicine.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2009.