The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is committed to helping the Nation improve our health care system. To fulfill its mission, AHRQ conducts and supports a wide range of health services research. This report presents key findings from AHRQ's research portfolio during Fiscal Year 2009.
Select for print version (PDF File, 1 MB). Plugin Software Help.
Contents
Introduction
Portfolios of Research
Comparative Effectiveness Portfolio
Patient Safety Portfolio
Health Information Technology Portfolio
Prevention/Care Management Portfolio
Value Portfolio and Related Activities
Knowledge Transfer and Implementation Program
Conclusion
Introduction
Fiscal year 2009 (FY09) was an exciting year for the
American health care system. An infusion of
funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) and the debate
over health reform brought new attention to the
opportunities and the challenges the system faces in
improving the safety and quality of health care,
ensuring access to care, increasing the value of
health care, reducing disparities, and increasing the
use of health information technology.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's
(AHRQ) Effective Health Care (EHC) Program
has successfully grown into a program that is
collaborative, transparent, stakeholder-driven,
relevant, and timely. Our goal is to develop
evidence-based information that is both rigorous
and relevant to clinical decisions and is available
when decisions are made. We have learned that to
achieve that goal, ongoing dialogue with public and
private sector stakeholders is essential.
In order to gain and maintain the trust of all
stakeholders, comparative effectiveness research
(CER) must be fully transparent to all.
Transparency has been a hallmark of the EHC
Program. The transparency begins with an open
process for setting research priorities, which the
secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) sets through discussion with and
extensive input from stakeholders. Within the
boundaries of those priorities, the public and other
interested stakeholders have the opportunity to
comment on the framing of specific research
questions and to critique draft reports. In addition
to the open invitation to comment, manufacturers
are notified when a comparative effectiveness
review begins on one of their products and are
invited to submit relevant studies and data. Efforts
to encourage outside input ensure that all
stakeholders have equal and fair access to the
process.
Comparative effectiveness research aims to improve
health outcomes by developing and disseminating
evidence-based information to patients, providers,
and health care decisionmakers about the
effectiveness of treatments relative to other options.
AHRQ's comparative effectiveness research
considers the effectiveness of treatments in specific
subpopulations and the clinical utility and validity
of genetic tests. Additionally, AHRQ supports
research on the way patients and physicians receive
and access the latest health care information. This
research, along with information about each
individual patient, can be used to optimize care for
the individual and can help us achieve the vision of
personalized medicine.
As 1 of 12 agencies within HHS, the mission of
AHRQ is to improve the quality, safety, efficiency,
and effectiveness of health care for all Americans.
The breadth of its mission puts AHRQ squarely in
the middle of all efforts to meet these challenges
and take advantage of these opportunities.
The Agency fulfills this mission by developing and
working with the health care system to implement
information that:
- Reduces the risk of harm from health care
services by using evidence-based research and
technology to promote the delivery of the best
possible care.
- Transforms the practice of health care to achieve
wider access to effective services and reduce
unnecessary health care costs.
- Improves health care outcomes by encouraging
providers, consumers, and patients to use
evidence-based information to make informed
treatment decisions.
Ultimately, the Agency achieves its goals by
translating research into improved health care
practice and policy. Health care providers, patients,
policymakers, payers, administrators, and others use
AHRQ research findings to improve health care
quality, accessibility, and outcomes of care.
Disseminating AHRQ's research findings helps
support a Nation of healthier, more productive
individuals and results in an enhanced return on
the Nation's substantial investment in health care.
This report presents key accomplishments,
initiatives, and research findings from AHRQ's
research Portfolios during FY09.
AHRQ 2009 Annual Conference
AHRQ's conference "Research to Reform: Achieving Health System Change," was held September 13-16,
2009, and covered topics on the health care infrastructure, the organization of health care services, health
care quality and safety, improving Americans' health status, provider performance and payment reform,
and increasing patient and consumer involvement in their care. Sessions included:
- The Role of Health IT in Measuring and Reducing Disparities.
- Reducing Hospital-Associated Infections.
- Shared Decision-Making: Helping Patients be Partners in Their Care.
- Developing Research Infrastructure to Enhance Quality and Reduce Health Care Disparities.
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): AHRQ's Role in Comparative Effectiveness Research.
- Use of Outcome Measures in Payment Reform.
- Children's Health Care Quality: Responding to a New National Focus.
- Enhancing Patient Safety and Quality with Evidence-Based Health Care Design.
|
The Agency's mission helps HHS achieve its
strategic goals to improve the safety, quality,
affordability, and accessibility of health care;
promote public health, disease prevention, and
emergency preparedness; contribute to the
economic and social well-being of individuals,
families, and communities; and advance scientific
and biomedical research and development related
to health and human services. The Agency has a
broad research portfolio that touches on nearly
every aspect of health care including:
- Clinical practice.
- Outcomes of care and effectiveness.
- Evidence-based medicine.
- Primary care and care for priority populations.
- Health care quality.
- Patient safety/medical errors.
- Organization and delivery of care and use of health care resources.
- Health care costs and financing.
- Health care system and public health preparedness.
- Health information technology.
- Knowledge transfer.
AHRQ's Customers
Clinicians use AHRQ's evidence-based tools and
research to deliver high-quality health care and to
work with their patients as partners. AHRQ also
provides clinicians with clinical decision-support
tools as well as access to guidelines, preventive care
recommendations, and quality measures.
Policymakers, purchasers, health plans, and health
systems use AHRQ research to make more
informed decisions on health care services,
insurance, costs, access, and quality. Public
policymakers use the information produced by
AHRQ to expand their capability to monitor and
evaluate changes in the health care system and to
devise policies designed to improve its
performance. Purchasers use the products of
AHRQ-sponsored research to obtain high-quality
health care services. Health plan and delivery
system administrators use the findings and tools
developed through AHRQ sponsored research to
make choices on how to improve the health care
system's ability to provide access to and deliver
high-quality, high-value care.
AHRQ research helps consumers get and use
objective, evidence-based information on how to
choose health plans, doctors, or hospitals. In
addition, AHRQ helps consumers play an active role in their health care and reduce the likelihood
that they will be subject to a medical error. Personal
health guides developed by AHRQ help people
keep track of their preventive care and other health
services they receive.
Return to Contents
Portfolios of Research
Research at AHRQ is performed under Portfolios
that encompass nearly every aspect of health care.
These research Portfolios include: Comparative
Effectiveness, Patient Safety, Health Information
Technology, Prevention/Care Management, and
Value Research.
Comparative Effectiveness
The goal of the Comparative Effectiveness Portfolio
is to provide high-quality research to help patients,
health care providers, and policymakers make the
best decisions they can about the health care they
receive and provide. The Comparative Effectiveness
Portfolio is dedicated to fulfilling this need through
high-quality research and conveying that
information to those who need it to make health
care decisions. Comparative effectiveness research
improves health care quality by providing patients
and physicians with state-of-the-science
information on which medical treatments work
best for a given condition.
Patient Safety
The Patient Safety Portfolio helps identify risks and
hazards that lead to medical errors and finds ways
to prevent patient injury associated with delivery of
health care. AHRQ supports research that provides
information on the scope and impact of medical
errors, identifies the root causes of threats to patient
safety, and examines effective ways to make system-level
changes to help prevent errors. Dissemination
and translation of these research findings and
methods to reduce errors is also critical to
improving the safety and quality of health care. To
make changes at the system level, there also must
be an environment, or culture, within health care
settings that encourages health professionals to
share information about medical errors and ways to
prevent them.
AHRQ Patient Safety Network (PSNet)
AHRQ PSNet (http://psnet.ahrq.gov) is a
national Web-based resource featuring the latest
news and essential resources on patient safety.
The site offers weekly updates of patient safety
literature, news, tools, and meetings ("What's
New"), and a vast set of carefully annotated
links to important research and other
information on patient safety ("The
Collection"). Supported by a robust patient
safety taxonomy and Web architecture, AHRQ
PSNet provides powerful searching and
browsing capability, as well as the ability for
diverse users to customize the site around their
interests (My PSNet). It also is tightly coupled
with AHRQ WebM&M, the popular monthly
journal that features user-submitted cases of
medical errors, expert commentaries, and
perspectives on patient safety. |
Health Information Technology
The Health Information Technology (Health IT)
Portfolio is a key element in the Nation's 10-year
strategy to bring health care into the 21st century
by advancing the use of information technology.
Through this research Portfolio, AHRQ and its
partners identify challenges to health IT adoption
and use, solutions and best practices for making
health IT work, and tools that will help hospitals
and clinicians successfully incorporate new
information technology. In addition, the Health IT
Portfolio develops and disseminates evidence and
evidence-based tools to inform policy and practice
on how health IT can improve the quality of
American health care.
Prevention/Care Management
The Prevention/Care Management Portfolio
focuses on translating evidence-based knowledge
into current recommendations for clinical
preventive services that are implemented as part of
routine clinical practice to improve the health of all
Americans. It supports research to improve and
reduce disparities of common chronic conditions
like diabetes, asthma, and heart disease.
Value Research
The Value Research Portfolio aims to find a way to
achieve greater value in health care—reducing
unnecessary costs and waste while maintaining or
improving quality—by producing the measures,
data, tools, evidence and strategies that health care
organizations, systems, insurers, purchasers, and
policymakers need to improve the value and
affordability of health care. The aim is to create a
high-value system, in which providers produce
greater value, consumers and payers choose value,
and the payment system rewards value.
Return to Contents
Comparative Effectiveness Portfolio
Comparative effectiveness research provides
information that people and their doctors can use
to work together to choose the most appropriate
treatment for an illness or condition. AHRQ
conducts comparative effectiveness research
through its Effective Health Care (EHC) Program.
In FY09, the EHC Program was allocated $300
million of Recovery Act funding for comparative
effectiveness research. In addition, it also released 5
comparative effectiveness reviews, 16 research
reports, and 13 user guides. Among these
publications are a comparative effectiveness review
on drugs to reduce the risk of primary breast
cancer; a research report on beta-blockers for heart
failure; and guides for consumers, clinicians, and
policymakers on subjects such as osteoarthritis of
the knee and gestational diabetes, as well as Spanish
language consumer guides on prostate cancer and
other subjects.
Comparisons of drugs, medical devices, tests,
surgeries, or ways to deliver health care can help
patients and their families understand what
treatments work best and how their risks compare,
while allowing for choices for each individual
patient. The EHC Program, created by Congress in
Section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003,
produces three primary products: research reviews,
new research reports, and summary guides.
For more information on the EHC Program, go to http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
signed into law by President Obama in February
2009, provided AHRQ with greater opportunities
to build upon its existing collaborative and
transparent EHC program and provide patients,
clinicians, and others with evidence-based
information to make informed decisions about
health care. Of the $1.1 billion contained within
the Recovery Act for comparative effectiveness
research, $300 million was allocated to AHRQ,
$400 million for the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), and $400 million to the Office of the
Secretary of HHS. In FY09, AHRQ began its
efforts to issue funding opportunity
announcements to spend this new funding, and
worked with NIH and the Office of the Secretary
on coordinating comparative effectiveness under
the Recovery Act.
For more information on the
Recovery Act and AHRQ's funding opportunities,
go to http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/cefarra.htm.
Research Reviews
These comprehensive reports are prepared by the
Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) and draw
on scientific studies to make comparisons of
treatments. They also show where more research is
needed. Research reviews from the EHC Program
are reported in several formats:
- Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (CERs) and
Effectiveness Reviews evaluate which treatments
work best while outlining treatments' side
effects and other risks.
- Technical Briefs explain what is known—and
what is not known—about new or emerging
health care tests or treatments.
- Updates apply systematic methods to bring
CERs and Evidence Reviews up to date by
reviewing the current literature.
CERs and Effectiveness Reviews
CERs and Effectiveness Reviews systematically
review and critically appraise existing research to
synthesize knowledge on a particular topic. They also identify research gaps and make
recommendations for studies and approaches to fill
those gaps. CERs draw on completed scientific
studies to make head-to-head comparisons of
different health care interventions. They also show
where more research is needed. Effectiveness
reviews are original research reports that are based
on clinical research and studies that use health care
databases and other scientific resources and
approaches to explore practical questions about the
effectiveness—or benefits and harms—of
treatments. Three CERs published in FY09 are
briefly summarized here:
- Comparative Effectiveness of Drugs to Reduce the
Risk of Primary Breast Cancer in Women. Three
drugs reduce a woman's chance of getting breast
cancer, but each drug carries distinct potential
harms of its own. The review found that three
drugs—tamoxifen, raloxifene, and tibolone—significantly reduce invasive breast cancer in
midlife and older women, but that benefits and
adverse effects can vary depending on the drug
and the patient. The report is the first to make a
direct, comprehensive comparison of the drugs
so that women and their health care providers
can assess the medications' potential
effectiveness and adverse effects.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Lipid-Modifying
Agents. This systematic review compares the
benefits and risks of increasing the dose of a
statin or using a statin in combination with a
lipid-modifying agent of another class in terms
of clinical events (e.g., heart attack, stroke, or
death), levels of LDL cholesterol, and other measures. The review found that the available
clinical trial evidence supporting the use of
combination therapies over higher dose statin
therapy is insufficient to guide clinical decisions.
The long-term clinical benefits and risks of
combination therapies have yet to be
demonstrated.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Radiofrequency
Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. This
report examines the use of a procedure called
radiofrequency catheter ablation to treat a type
of irregular heartbeat known as atrial
fibrillation. It found that the procedure has
been shown to provide benefits in maintaining
normal heart rhythm over short periods of time
(up to 1 year). However, the report showed
little evidence indicating whether the procedure
reduces the chance that patients will experience
atrial fibrillation over the long term.
Technical Briefs
A Technical Brief is a report on a topic involving an
emerging clinical intervention. It provides an
overview of key issues related to the intervention—for example, current indications for the
intervention, relevant patient population and
subgroups of interest, outcomes measured, and
contextual factors that may affect decisions
regarding the intervention. The emphasis of the
Technical Briefs is to provide an early objective
description of the state of science, a potential
framework for assessing the applications and
implications of the new interventions, a summary
of ongoing research, and information on future
research needs. Technical Briefs generally focus on
interventions for which there are limited published
data and too few completed protocol-driven studies
to support definitive conclusions. The first
published brief in this new series is summarized
below.
- Particle Beam Radiation Therapies for Cancer.
This technical brief found that it is not possible
to draw conclusions about the comparative
safety and effectiveness of particle beam
radiation therapy (PBRT) at this time. The brief
reviews the different types of PBRT, their potential advantages and disadvantages, and
their current uses. At present, there is very
limited evidence comparing the safety and
effectiveness of PBRT with conventional
radiation treatments for people with cancer.
Additional CERs and Technical Briefs will be
published in FY 2010. Topics include Comparative
Effectiveness of Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy
for the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions and Stereotactic
Radiosurgery for Non-Brain Cancer and Maternal-Fetal Surgery.
Navigating the Health Care System
AHRQ Director Carolyn Clancy, M.D.,
presents a series of brief, easy-to-understand
advice columns for consumers on how to
recognize high-quality health care, how to be an
informed health care consumer, and how to
choose a hospital, doctor, and health plan. In
FY09, subjects included:
- What You Need to Know about Blood
Thinner Pills.
- How To Make an Emergency Department
Visit a Safe One.
- An Aspirin a Day? The Answer Is Different
for Men and Women.
- Talking About End-of-Life Treatment
Decisions.
- Keeping Track of Your Health Information.
- Asking Questions To Get the Care You Need.
- How To Complain—And Get Heard.
- How Tired Is Your Doctor?
- How To Choose Long-Term Care Services.
- New Hope for Chronic Disease Management.
- Keeping Healthy When the Economy Is Not.
The advice columns are on the AHRQ Web site at http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/cc.htm. |
New Research Reports
These reports are based on clinical research and
studies that use health care databases and other
scientific resources and approaches to explore
practical questions about the effectiveness and safety of treatments. They are produced by the
Centers for Education & Research on Therapeutics
(CERTs) and AHRQ's Developing Evidence to
Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE)
Network. The DEcIDE Network is a network of
research centers that AHRQ created as part of its
EHC Program in 2005 to generate new
knowledge. The DEcIDE Network consists of
research-based health organizations with access to
electronic health information databases and the
capacity to conduct research. It conducts practical
studies about the outcomes, comparative clinical
effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of health
care items and services.
In FY09, the DEcIDE Network released 16 new
research reports, 2 of which are summarized below:
- Use of Beta-Blockers in Elderly Patients. One
study found that patients who took metoprolol
tartrate had a slightly higher risk of death than
patients who took atenolol. The risk of death
was not significantly different between patients
who took atenolol or carvedilol. A second study
compared 1-year survival rates of beta-blockers
for which there is evidence (carvedilol,
metoprolol succinate, and bisoprolol fumarate)
and beta-blockers that have not been tested in
heart failure. The study found similar survival
rates but higher hospitalization rates among
patients who took the evidence-based beta-blockers.
Each study was based on an analysis
of over 11,000 heart failure patients aged 65
and older.
- Effectiveness of Tiotropium in Treating COPD. In
a study of patients with COPD (chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease) in the Veterans
Health Administration system, the regimen of
tiotropium plus inhaled corticosteroids plus
long-acting beta-agonists was associated with a
40 percent reduced risk of death compared to
inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting beta-agonists.
This combination was also associated
with reduced risks of COPD exacerbations and
hospitalizations. However, tiotropium in
combination with two other medications was
associated with increased risk of mortality,
exacerbations, and hospitalization.
Summary Guides
These short, plain-language guides—tailored to
clinicians, consumers, or policymakers—summarize research reviews' findings on the
effectiveness and risks of different treatment
options. Consumer guides provide useful
background on health conditions. Clinician and
policymaker guides rate the strength of evidence
behind a report's conclusions. The guides on
medications also contain basic wholesale price
information.
Among the new consumer and clinical guides released in FY09 are:
- Osteoarthritis of the Knee, a new consumer guide
for adults who have osteoarthritis of the knee
and need information about available
treatments for this condition.
- Three Treatments for Osteoarthritis of the Knee:
Evidence Shows Lack of Benefit, a clinician's
guide for treatments for osteoarthritis of the
knee.
- Gestational Diabetes: A Guide for Pregnant
Women, a consumer guide, presents treatment
options, including diet, insulin, or the oral
diabetes medicines, glyburide or metformin,
and gives women advice on what they should
do after pregnancy.
- Gestational Diabetes: Medications, Delivery, and
Development of Type 2 Diabetes, a clinician's
guide covers these topics, provides an at-a-glance
"clinical bottom line" for managing
patients, along with ratings of the evidence for
each treatment.
For more information on AHRQ's EHC Program,
go to http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
Evidence-Based Practice Centers
Under the Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC)
Program, institutions in the United States and
Canada receive multi-year contracts to review all
relevant scientific literature on clinical, behavioral,
organizational and financing topics; methodology
of systematic reviews; and other health care delivery
issues; and produce evidence reports and
technology assessments. The information in these
reports is used by Federal and State agencies;
private-sector professional societies; health delivery
systems; providers; payers; and others committed to
evidence-based health care for informing and
developing coverage decisions, quality measures,
educational materials and tools, guidelines, and
research agendas.
Recent research findings from the EPC program
Some of the new evidence reports and technology
assessments released by the 14 EPCs include:
- Bariatric Surgery in Women of Reproductive Age:
Special Concerns for Pregnancy. This review found
that women who undergo weight-loss surgery,
known as bariatric surgery, and later become
pregnant after losing weight may be at lower
risk for pregnancy-related diabetes and high
blood pressure—complications that can
seriously affect the mother or her baby—than
pregnant women who are obese. The review was
based on findings from 75 studies, including 3
that compared pregnancies of non-obese
women with those of obese women as well as to
pregnancies of women who lost weight
surgically.
- Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective
Induction of Labor. Researchers found that that
elective induction of labor at 41 weeks of
gestation and beyond may be associated with a
decrease in both the risk of cesarean delivery
and of meconium-stained amniotic fluid.
Despite the evidence from the prospective
randomized, controlled trials reviewed, there are concerns about the translation of such findings
into actual practice. The evidence regarding
elective induction of labor prior to 41 weeks of
gestation is insufficient to draw any conclusion.
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Back
Pain Utilization. Researchers found few studies
evaluating the relative utilization of various
complementary and alternative medicine
(CAM) therapies for back pain. For those
studies evaluating utilization of individual
CAM therapies, the specific characteristics of
the therapy, providers who use it, and the
clinical presentation of the back pain patients
were not adequately detailed nor was the
overlap with other CAM or conventional
treatments.
- Barriers and Drivers of Health Information
Technology Use for the Elderly, Chronically Ill, and
Underserved. This review shows that there are
distinct factors that influence the use and
usability of interactive consumer health IT by
the elderly, chronically ill, and underserved
populations. Researchers found that health IT
systems that allow physicians to assess their
patients' current health status, treatment plan
and goals, and provide new or adjusted
treatment advice are most successfully used.
Barriers to adoption of health IT systems can
occur when patients do not see the benefit of
using computer or other interactive
technologies for self-managing their health
problems. Other barriers include time
constraints for the patient, lack of trust in the
information received, technical problems, and
physician unresponsiveness to questions.
- Cost-Effectiveness of CT Colonography to Screen for
Colorectal Cancer. This technology assessment
shows that the screening benefit for 5-yearly computed tomography (CT) colonography,
measured in terms of discounted life-years
gained compared with no screening, was 2-7
life-years lower per 1,000 65-year-old
individuals than colonoscopy screening every 10
years but comparable to that of 5-yearly flexible
sigmoidoscopy plus an annual fecal occult blood
test. At a per test cost of $488 the overall costs
for the CT colonography strategy were higher
than all of the other screening strategies.
The EPCs are currently working on the following
topics:
- Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction and
Asthma.
- Enhancing Use and Quality of Colorectal
Cancer Screening.
- Diagnosis and Management of Ductal
Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS).
- Lactose Intolerance and Health.
- Management of Acute Otitis Media, Update.
For more information about the EPC Program, go
to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcix.htm.
New Spanish language consumer guides
AHRQ released six consumer guides in Spanish on the subjects of treating prostate cancer, comparing
blood pressure pills, rheumatoid arthritis medicines, osteoporosis treatments, antidepressant medicines,
and renal artery stenosis treatments:
- Tratamiento para el cáncer de próstata—Guía para hombres con cáncer localizado de prostate. This guide on prostate cancer treatment discusses four common prostate cancer treatments and their side effects.
- Comparación de dos tipos de pastillas para la presión arterial alta: ACEI y ARB—Guía para adultos. This guide to blood pressure medication discusses the benefits, costs, and side effects of two different
kinds of pills, ACE inhibitors (ACEI) and ARBs.
- Medicamentos para la artritis reumatoide—Guía para adultos. This guide to rheumatoid arthritis
medicines discusses how arthritis affects the joints and two kinds of medicine used to treat it: disease-modifying
anti-rheumatic drugs and steroids such as prednisone, which help with joint pain and
swelling.
- Tratamientos para la osteoporosis que ayudan a prevenir fracturas de huesos—Guía para mujeres después de
la menopausia. This guide to osteoporosis treatments discusses the benefits, side effects, and costs of
osteoporosis treatments that help prevent broken bones.
- Medicamentos antidepresivos—Guía para adultos con depresion. This guide to antidepressant medicines
discusses the symptoms of depression and the benefits, side effects, and costs of numerous
antidepressants.
- Tratamientos para la estenosis de la arteria renal—Guía para el consumidor. The guide to renal artery
stenosis (RAS) treatments discusses the health problems caused by RAS and two kinds of treatment
for the condition.
For copies of these guides, go to http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/spanishInfo.cfm. |
Centers for Education and
Research on Therapeutics
The Centers for Education and Research on
Therapeutics (CERTs) is a national program that
conducts research and provides education to
advance the optimal use of drugs, biologicals, and
medical devices. The CERTs program, which is
administered by AHRQ in consultation with the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was
originally authorized by Congress in 1997 to
examine the benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of
therapeutic products; educate patients, consumers,
doctors, pharmacists, and other clinical personnel;
and improve quality of care while reducing
unnecessary costs by increasing appropriate use of
therapeutics and preventing adverse effects and
their medical consequences.
Clinician-Consumer Health Advisory
Information Network (CHAIN)
This new educational Web site offers expert
perspectives, advice, and guidance on drugs, biological products, and medical devices. The
Clinician-Consumer Health Advisory Information
Network (CHAIN) links clinicians and consumers
with information on therapeutics to assist in
clinical practice and health care decisionmaking in
areas where evidence is undergoing significant and
rapid changes. The site also provides access to
educational and informational resources developed
from research conducted by CERTs. Its educational
section includes materials to assist consumers with
clinician-patient conversations and decisionmaking
as well as an online medication record. Resources
for clinicians include a slide library that can be
adapted to educate clinical audiences and used for
continuing medical education credit. For more
information, go to http://www.chainonline.org.
Recent research findings from the CERTs program
- Atypical antipsychotic drugs and the risk of sudden
cardiac death. Patients ages 30 to 74 who took
atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone
(Risperdal®), quetiapine (Seroquel®),
olanzapine (Zyprexa®), and clozapine
(Clozaril®) had a significantly higher risk of
sudden death from cardiac arrhythmias and
other cardiac causes than patients who did not
take these medications, according to researchers
from the Vanderbilt University CERT. The risk
of death increased with higher doses of the
drugs taken. Atypical antipsychotics are
commonly used to treat schizophrenia and
bipolar disorders. They are also prescribed "off
label" for symptoms such as agitation, anxiety,
psychotic episodes, and obsessive
behaviors. Atypical antipsychotics are less likely
than typical antipsychotics to cause tremors and
other serious movement disorders. (New
England Journal of Medicine, January 2009)
- Patterns of hospital use by elderly patients with
psychiatric conditions. A study by researchers
from the Rutgers University CERT finds that
22 percent of elderly patients who were treated
at and released from hospitals end up back in
the hospital within 6 months. Hospital stays of
5 days or longer decreased the chances that
patients with affective disorders (for example, depression or bipolar disorder) would be
rehospitalized. The findings indicate that to
prevent readmissions, patients should not be
prematurely discharged, especially those with
affective disorders. Patients could also benefit
from tailored discharge plans and aftercare,
suggest the authors, who used 2002 Medicare
data for 41,839 patients for this study.
(Psychiatric Services, September 2008)
- Specimens from multiple body sites needed to
accurately test for MRSA. Researchers at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
CERT identified 56 individuals who had swab
samples positive for MRSA. Swab specimens
were taken from the nose, under the arm,
throat, groin, and perineum. Immediately after
these were taken, either the patient or the
parent (for pediatric patients) took swab
samples from the same body sites. For both
provider- and patient-collected samples, the
nose was the most common site where MRSA
was present, followed by the throat. However,
nearly a quarter of individuals would not have
been identified as having MRSA if the nose had
not been sampled. Likewise, 5 percent of cases
would have been missed if samples were not
obtained from the throat. Swab samples from
the groin and perineum tested positive for
probable community-acquired MRSA
significantly more often (75 percent) than they
did for hospital-acquired MRSA (33 percent).
The researchers found strong agreement between the findings for patient-collected
samples and provider-collected samples. As
such, patient-collected sampling may be a way
to improve the efficiency of community-based
surveillance and research. (Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology, April 2009)
More information about the CERTs program can
be found at http://certs.hhs.gov.
American College of Physicians uses AHRQ research in creating clinical practice
guidelines
The American College of Physicians (ACP) relies primarily on two AHRQ programs—the EPC and
the EHC program—in creating their guidelines. Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, Chair of ACP's
Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee, reports that nearly a dozen EPC reports have been used to
create ACP guidelines. ACP also used AHRQ's EHC guide on depression medications.
According to Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, FACP, Senior Medical Associate at the American College
of Physicians, who is responsible for the ACP's clinical practice guidelines program, these guidelines have
reached wide audiences via print, television, and the internet. He shares specific examples, as follows:
ACP Guideline |
No. of Print/Internet Stories |
No. of TV Stories |
No. of Downloads |
Total Audience, 2007-08 |
Diagnosis & Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
165 |
102 |
4,500 |
7,480,387 |
Screening for Osteoporosis |
155 |
|
35,300 |
24,865,850 |
Treatment of Depression |
114 |
89 |
14,000 |
21,608,408 |
Treatment of Osteoporosis |
54 |
|
34,400 |
7,936,165 |
Treatment of Dementia |
54 |
|
55,400 |
7,870,523 |
Palliative Care at the End of Life |
140 |
|
42,000 |
7,028,522 |
Since January 2007, ACP guidelines have had an estimated reach of 340 million people. The individual
guidelines have been downloaded tens, even hundreds of thousands of times. ACP is the largest medical
specialty organization and second largest physician group in the United States. Its membership of
126,000 includes internists, internal medicine subspecialists, medical students, residents, and fellows. |
Return to Contents
Proceed to Next Section