Modern needs in health technology assessment: a study of comparative effectiveness
https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v10i2.640
Abstract
Health technology assessment is a key component of healthcare decision making in most of the developed countries. Comparative effectiveness research as one of the elements of such assessment is becoming increasingly important in recent years. It is based on the effectiveness analysis of health technologies in real clinical practice setting. The authors have analyzed publications dedicated to these issues and showed the main methods of such study, its peculiarities, advantages and disadvantages. It has been revealed that the most frequently used designs of expert analysis are observational and pragmatic randomized studies. The main recommendations on analyzing comparative effectiveness are given in view of the literary data.
About the Authors
A. V. Pavlysh
Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Russian Federation
MD, PhD candidate at the social health and healthcare department of the Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg Medical University
MD, PhD candidate at the social health and healthcare department of the Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg Medical University
A. S. Kolbin
Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Russian Federation
R. A. Gapeshin
Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Russian Federation
S. M. Malyshev
Academician Pavlov Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Russian Federation
References
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. Avksent'eva M.V., Omel'yanovskii V.V. Meditsinskie tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor = Medical technologies. Assessment and choice. 2001; 1: 52–58.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Sox H. C. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010; 48 (Suppl. 6): 7–8.
9. Tunis S. R., Benner J., McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat. Med. 2010; 29 (19): 1963–76.
10. Sox H., Goodman S. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Ann. Rev. Public Health. 2012; 33: 425–450.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Klimt C. The conduct and principles of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1981; 4: 283–293.
15. 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.
16. Memtsoudis S., Besculides M. Perioperative comparative effectiveness research. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2011; 4: 535–547.
17. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987; 317: 141–5.
18. 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.
19. Marko N. F., Weil R. J. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness re-searches. Value Health. 2010; 13 (8): 989–97.
20. Didelez V., Meng S., Sheehan N. A. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Statist Sci. 2010; 25: 22–40.
21. Sorensen T. I. A. Which patients may be harmed by good treatments? Lancet. 1996; 348: 351–2.
22. Zavidova S.S., Topolyanskaya S.V., Namazova-Baranova L.S. Pediatricheskaya farmakologiya = Pediatric pharmacology. 2010; 7 (1): 6–14.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Gupta S. K. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin. Res. 2011; 2 (3): 109–12.
26. 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.
27. Available at: http://www.inahta.net
28. Available at: http://www.hta-rus.ru
29. Available at: http://www.emaud.org
30. 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.
Review
For citations:
Pavlysh A.V., Kolbin A.S., Gapeshin R.A., Malyshev S.M. Modern needs in health technology assessment: a study of comparative effectiveness. Pediatric pharmacology. 2013;10(2):19-23. https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v10i2.640
Views:
711
Email this article 