Monday, April 4, 4:45-6:00 PM
Comparative effectiveness research is here to stay. One of the signs of its importance is the PROMISE trial, a multi-million dollar randomized study initiated by the NIH to compare two imaging modalities in the setting of acute chest pain. This has never been done. In imaging, the modalities have primarily been tested to gauge their own accuracy, not to determine which test leads to better outcomes. In addition, the trial will examine the cost-effectiveness of the tests.
Comparative effectiveness research is a new area of pursuit that will have a big impact on how cardiovascular medicine is practiced—and reimbursed. There is some concern that cost-effectiveness outcomes could lead to rationing of tests only because they are less expensive, rather than more beneficial. With comparative effectiveness research tied to cost-effectiveness, this concern could be alleviated.
Because comparative effectiveness research is a relatively new approach in cardiovascular medicine, and because it most likely will be tied to best practices and reimbursement, it is important for cardiovascular professionals to learn about it from the bottom up, which is what this session promises to do.
- Pamela S. Douglas, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C. -- Comparative Effectiveness in Imaging
- William S. Weintraub, MD, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Del. -- Comparative Effectiveness Using Large Clinical Databases
- David J. Magid, MD, MPH, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver -- Comparative Effectiveness in the Kaiser Permanente System
- Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Framingham, Mass. -- Comparative Effectiveness Using Epidemiologic Databases