ppharmПедиатрическая фармакологияPediatric pharmacology1727-57762500-3089Издательство «ПедиатрЪ»10.15690/pf.v10i2.640ppharm-230Research ArticleНОВЫЕ МЕДИЦИНСКИЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИNEW TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINEСОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ЗАПРОС В ОЦЕНКЕ МЕДИЦИНСКИХ ТЕХНОЛОГИЙ: ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОЙ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИModern needs in health technology assessment: a study of comparative effectivenessПавлышА. В.PavlyshA. V.

MD, PhD candidate at the social health and healthcare department of the Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg Medical University

pavlysh_63@mail.ruКолбинА. С.KolbinA. S.pavlysh_63@mail.ruГапешинР. А.GapeshinR. A.pavlysh_63@mail.ruМалышевС. М.MalyshevS. M.pavlysh_63@mail.ruСанкт-Петербургский государственный медицинский университет им. академика И.П. Павлова, Российская ФедерацияAcademician Pavlov Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Russian Federation201301042013102Педиатрическая фармакология1923Copyright © Павлыш А.В., Колбин А.С., Гапешин Р.А., Малышев С.М., 20132013Павлыш А.В., Колбин А.С., Гапешин Р.А., Малышев С.М.Pavlysh A.V., Kolbin A.S., Gapeshin R.A., Malyshev S.M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.pedpharma.ru/jour/article/view/230

Оценка медицинских технологий ― важнейшая составляющая принятия решений в системе здравоохранения большинства развитых стран мира. В последние годы все более значимыми становятся исследования по сравнительной эффективности как одного из элементов такой оценки. Ключевым в них является анализ эффективности медицинских технологий в условиях реальной клинической практики. Авторами проведен анализ литературы, посвященной этой проблеме. Показаны основные методы такого исследования, их особенности, позитивные и негативные стороны. Выявлено, что наиболее частыми видами экспертного анализа являются обсервационные (наблюдательные) и прагматические рандомизированные исследования. С учетом данных литературы предложены основные рекомендации по проведению анализа сравнительной эффективности.

исследования сравнительной эффективностидизайн исследованияоценка медицинских технологийcomparative effectiveness researchstudy designhealth technology assessmentReferencesKleijnen S., Goettsch W., d’Andon A., Vitre P., George E., Goulden S., Osinska B., Rdzany R., Zawada A., Thirstrup S., Nagy B., Corbacho B. EUnetHTA JA WP5: Relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. Background review. July, 2011 (version 5B).Kleijnen S., Goettsch W., d’Andon A., Vitre P., George E., Goulden S., Osinska B., Rdzany R., Zawada A., Thirstrup S., Nagy B., Corbacho B. EUnetHTA JA WP5: Relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. Background review. July, 2011 (version 5B).Berger M. L., Dreyer N., Anderson F. et al. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the 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 effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2012; 15 (2): 217–30.Авксентьева М. В., Омельяновский В. В. Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор. 2001; 1: 52–58.Avksent'eva M.V., Omel'yanovskii V.V. Meditsinskie tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor = Medical technologies. Assessment and choice. 2001; 1: 52–58.Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S. et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 yurisdiction. Value in Health. 2012; 15: 954–960.Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S. et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 yurisdiction. Value in Health. 2012; 15: 954–960.High level pharmaceutical forum. Availability of data to conduct relative effectiveness assessments. Available at URL: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/effectiveness_en.htm (accessed December 2010).High level pharmaceutical forum. Availability of data to conduct relative effectiveness assessments. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/effectiveness_en.htm 6. (accessed December 2010).Bown S. R. Scurvy: how a surgeon, a mariner, and a gentleman solved the greatest medical mystery of the age of sail. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 2003.Bown S. R. Scurvy: how a surgeon, a mariner, and a gentleman solved the greatest medical mystery of the age of sail. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 2003.Federal coordinating council for comparative effectiveness research: report to the president and the congress. Washington, DC:US Department of Health and Human Services. June 30, 2009.Federal coordinating council for comparative effectiveness research: report to the president and the congress. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, June 30, 2009.Sox H. C. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010; 48 (Suppl. 6): 7–8.Sox H. C. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010; 48 (Suppl. 6): 7–8.Tunis S. R., Benner J., McClellan M. Comparative effecti veness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med. 2010; 29 (19): 1963–76.Tunis S. R., Benner J., McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat. Med. 2010; 29 (19): 1963–76.Sox H., Goodman S. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2012; 33: 425–450.Sox H., Goodman S. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Ann. Rev. Public Health. 2012; 33: 425–450.Hannan E. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Guidelines for assessing respective strengths and limitations. The American College of cardiology foundation. 2008; 1 (3): 211–7.Hannan E. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Guidelines for assessing respective strengths and limitations. The American College of cardiology foundation. 2008; 1 (3): 211–7.Клиническая эпидемиология. Основы доказательной медицины. Пер. с англ. под ред. Р. Флетчер, С. Флетчер, Э. Вагнер. М.: Медиа Сфера. 1998. 347 с.Klinicheskaya epidemiologiya. Osnovy dokazatel'noi meditsiny. Per. s angl. pod red. R. Fletcher, S. Fletcher, E. Vagner [Clinical Epidemiology. Foundations of Evidence-based Medicine. Translated from English. Edited by R. Fletcher, S. Fletcher, E. Vagner]. Moscow, Media Sfera, 1998. 347 p.Ren Y., Cacciato R., Whelehan M., Li N., Malmstrom H. S. Effects of toothbrushes with tapered and cross angled soft bristle design on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: a randomized and controlled clinical trial. Elsevier. Journal of Dentistry. 2007; 35: 614–622.Ren Y., Cacciato R., Whelehan M., Li N., Malmstrom H. S. Effects of toothbrushes with tapered and cross angled soft bristle design on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: a randomized and controlled clinical trial. Elsevier. Journal of Dentistry. 2007; 35: 614–622.Klimt C. The conduct and principles of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1981; 4: 283–293.Klimt C. The conduct and principles of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1981; 4: 283–293.Evley R., Russell J., Mathew D. et al. Confirming the drugs administered during anaesthesia: a feasibility study in the pilot national health service sites, UK. Br J Anaesth. 2010; 105: 289–96.Evley R., Russell J., Mathew D. et al. Confirming the drugs administered during anaesthesia: a feasibility study in the pilot national health service sites, UK. Br. J. Anaesth. 2010; 105: 289–96.Memtsoudis S., Besculides M. Perioperative comparative effectiveness research. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2011; 4: 535–547.Memtsoudis S., Besculides M. Perioperative comparative effectiveness research. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2011; 4: 535–547.Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317: 141–5.Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987; 317: 141–5.Skelly A. C., Dettori J. R., Brodt E. D. Assessing bias: the importance of considering confounding. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012; 3 (1): 9–12.Skelly A. C., Dettori J. R., Brodt E. D. Assessing bias: the importance of considering confounding. Evid. Based Spine Care J. 2012; 3 (1): 9–12.Marko N. F., Weil R. J. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness re-searches. Value Health. 2010; 13 (8): 989–97.Marko N. F., Weil R. J. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness re-searches. Value Health. 2010; 13 (8): 989–97.Didelez V., Meng S., Sheehan N. A. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Statist Sci. 2010; 25: 22–40.Didelez V., Meng S., Sheehan N. A. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Statist Sci. 2010; 25: 22–40.Sorensen T. I. A. Which patients may be harmed by good treatments? Lancet. 1996; 348: 351–2.Sorensen T. I. A. Which patients may be harmed by good treatments? Lancet. 1996; 348: 351–2.Завидова С.С., Тополянская С.В., Намазова-Баранова Л.С. Клинические исследования лекарственных препаратов в педиатрии: проблемы и достижения. Педиатрическая фармакология. 2010; 7 (1): 6–14.Zavidova S.S., Topolyanskaya S.V., Namazova-Baranova L.S. Pediatricheskaya farmakologiya = Pediatric pharmacology. 2010; 7 (1): 6–14.Kravitz R. L., Duan N., Braslow J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogenenity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004; 82: 661–87.Kravitz R. L., Duan N., Braslow J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogenenity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004; 82: 661–87.Heinze G., Juni P. An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32 (14): 1704–8.Heinze G., Juni P. An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses. Eur. Heart J. 2011; 32 (14): 1704–1708.Gupta S. K. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res. 2011; 2 (3): 109–12.Gupta S. K. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin. Res. 2011; 2 (3): 109–12.Busse R., Orvain J., Velasco M., Perleth M., Drummond M. et al. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2002; 18 (2): 361–422.Busse R., Orvain J., Velasco M., Perleth M., Drummond M. et al. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2002; 18 (2): 361–422.URL: http://www.inahta.netAvailable at: http://www.inahta.netURL: http://www.hta-rus.ruAvailable at: http://www.hta-rus.ruURL: http://www.emaud.orgAvailable at: http://www.emaud.orgTappenden P., Chilcott J., Ward S., Eggington S., Hind D., Hummel S. Methodological issues in the economic analysis of cancer treatments. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42 (17): 2867–75.Tappenden P., Chilcott J., Ward S., Eggington S., Hind D., Hummel S. Methodological issues in the economic analysis of cancer treatments. Eur. J. Cancer. 2006; 42 (17): 2867–75.

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