clinvestКачественная клиническая практикаKachestvennaya Klinicheskaya Praktika = Good Clinical Practice2588-05192618-8473ООО «Издательство ОКИclinvest-173Research ArticleОЦЕНКА МЕДИЦИНСКИХ ТЕХНОЛОГИЙHEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTИсследования сравнительной эффективностиКолбинА. С.ПавлышА. В.КурылевА. А.БелоусовД. Ю.

генеральный директор

clinvest@mail.ruПервый Санкт-Петербургский государственный медицинcкий университет имени акад. И.П.Павлова; Санкт-Петербургский государственный университетRussian FederationПервый Санкт-Петербургский государственный медицинский университет имени академика И.П. ПавловаRussian FederationПервый Санкт-Петербургский государственный медицинский университет им. акад. И.П. ПавловаRussian FederationООО "Центр фармакоэкономических исследований", г. МоскваRussian Federation201306062018017077Copyright © Колбин А.С., Павлыш А.В., Курылев А.А., Белоусов Д.Ю., 20182018Колбин А.С., Павлыш А.В., Курылев А.А., Белоусов Д.Ю.Колбин А.С., Павлыш А.В., Курылев А.А., Белоусов Д.Ю.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.clinvest.ru/jour/article/view/173

Актуальность. Существует необходимость унифицировать термины «comparative effectiveness research» (CER), «relative effectiveness assessment» (REA) с целью их гармонизации, т.е. повышения доступности их применения. Цель статьи. Оценка основных понятий, относящихся к исследованию сравнительной эффективности, методологий их проведения. Методология. Проведён анализ публикаций в период с 1990 по 2012 гг. на предмет выявления данных, посвящённых исследованиям по сравнительной эффективности. Поиск производили в системах MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, eLibrary.ru. Выводы. Исследования сравнительной эффективности играют всё возрастающую роль в принятии решений о возмещении расходов на лекарственные средства. Это не только ведёт к распространению идеологии принятия решений, основанных на клинических доказательствах, но и формирует на фармацевтическом рынке значимую долю лекарственных средств с наилучшим соотношением «цена/качество». Представляется необходимым углубленное сотрудничество между странами в развитии методов для стандартизации данных исследований. Очевидно, существует необходимость создать в этой области согласованные международные руководства. Также важным шагом для обмена результатами оценки будет гармонизация и/или стандартизация подходов экстраполирования данных о действенности в данные об эффективности.

comparative effectiveness assessmenthealth technology assessmenthealth related quality of lifeисследования сравнительной эффективностиоценка медицинских технологийоценка технологий здравоохранениякачество жизниReferencesАвксентьева М.В., Омельяновский В.В. Международный опыт оценки технологий в здравоохранении / М. В. Авксентьева, В. В. Омельяновский // Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор — 2010.-№1.-С.52-58.Авксентьева М.В., Омельяновский В.В. Международный опыт оценки технологий в здравоохранении / М. В. Авксентьева, В. В. Омельяновский // Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор — 2010.-№1.-С.52-58.http://www.inahta.nethttp://www.inahta.netBerger M.L., Dreyer N., Anderson F., et al. Prospective Observational Studies to Assess Comparative Eff ectiveness: Th e ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2012;15(2):217-30.Berger M.L., Dreyer N., Anderson F., et al. Prospective Observational Studies to Assess Comparative Eff ectiveness: Th e ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2012;15(2):217-30.Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S., et al. Relative Eff ectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Similarities and Diff erences in 29 Jurisdictions. Value In Health 2012;15:954 — 960.Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S., et al. Relative Eff ectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Similarities and Diff erences in 29 Jurisdictions. Value In Health 2012;15:954 — 960.High Level Pharmaceutical Forum. Core principles on relative eff ectiveness. 2008.High Level Pharmaceutical Forum. Core principles on relative eff ectiveness. 2008.Public Law No: 111-5. H.R. 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Barack Obama on 2/17/2009.Public Law No: 111-5. H.R. 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Barack Obama on 2/17/2009.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Eff ectiveness Research. Report to the President and the Congress, 2009.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Eff ectiveness Research. Report to the President and the Congress, 2009.Sorenson C. Use of comparative eff ectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2010;91:1—14.Sorenson C. Use of comparative eff ectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2010;91:1—14.Zwarenstein M., Treweek S., Gagnier J.J., et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008; 337:a2390.Zwarenstein M., Treweek S., Gagnier J.J., et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008; 337:a2390.Temple R.J. A regulatory authority’s opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT, eds., Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation. New York: Wiley, 1995.Temple R.J. A regulatory authority’s opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT, eds., Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation. New York: Wiley, 1995.Kleist P. Composite endpoints for clinical trials: current perspectives. Int J Pharmaceut Med 2007;21:187—98.Kleist P. Composite endpoints for clinical trials: current perspectives. Int J Pharmaceut Med 2007;21:187—98.Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: Th e FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Committee on the Public Health Eff ectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine; 2011.Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: Th e FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Committee on the Public Health Eff ectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine; 2011.Chalkidou K., Tunis S., Lopert R., et al. Comparative eff ectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank QChalkidou K., Tunis S., Lopert R., et al. Comparative eff ectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q; 87:339—67.; 87:339—67.Levy A.R., Mitton C., Johnston K.M., et al. International comparison of comparative eff ectiveness research in fi ve jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28:813—30.Levy A.R., Mitton C., Johnston K.M., et al. International comparison of comparative eff ectiveness research in fi ve jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28:813—30.Pharmaceutical Benefi ts Advisory Committee. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefi ts Advisory Committee. Version 4.3. Canberra, Canada: Commonwealth of Australia, 2008.Pharmaceutical Benefi ts Advisory Committee. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefi ts Advisory Committee. Version 4.3. Canberra, Canada: Commonwealth of Australia, 2008.Clement F.M., Harris A., Li J.J., et al. Using eff ectiveness and cost-eff ectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 2009;302:1437—43.Clement F.M., Harris A., Li J.J., et al. Using eff ectiveness and cost-eff ectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 2009;302:1437—43.Cohen J., Faden L., Predaris S., et al. Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison. Eur J Health Econ 2007; 8:253—66.Cohen J., Faden L., Predaris S., et al. Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison. Eur J Health Econ 2007; 8:253—66.Morgan S.G., McMahon M., Mitton C., et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25:337—47.Morgan S.G., McMahon M., Mitton C., et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25:337—47.Zentner A., Velasco-Garrido M., Busse R. Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. GMS Health Technol Assess 2005; 1:1—12.Zentner A., Velasco-Garrido M., Busse R. Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. GMS Health Technol Assess 2005; 1:1—12.Jönsson B. Relative eff ectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market. Eur J Health Eco 2011; 12:97—102.Jönsson B. Relative eff ectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market. Eur J Health Eco 2011; 12:97—102.Goldberg N.H., Schneeweiss S., Kowal M.K., et al. Availability of comparative effi cacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States. JAMA 2011;305:1786—9.Goldberg N.H., Schneeweiss S., Kowal M.K., et al. Availability of comparative effi cacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States. JAMA 2011;305:1786—9.van Luijn J.C., Gribnau F.W., Leufk ens H.G. Availability of comparative trials for the assessment of new medicines in the European Union at the moment of market authorization. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63:159—62.van Luijn J.C., Gribnau F.W., Leufk ens H.G. Availability of comparative trials for the assessment of new medicines in the European Union at the moment of market authorization. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63:159—62.Gartlehner G., Moore C.G. Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24:170—7.Gartlehner G., Moore C.G. Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24:170—7.Bucher H.C., Guyatt G.H., Griffi th L.E., et al. Th e results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50:683—91.Bucher H.C., Guyatt G.H., Griffi th L.E., et al. Th e results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50:683—91.Song F., Altman D.G., Glenny A.M., et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating effi cacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;326:472.Song F., Altman D.G., Glenny A.M., et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating effi cacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;326:472.Song F., Loke Y.K., Walsh T., et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009;338:b1147.Song F., Loke Y.K., Walsh T., et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009;338:b1147.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.