Using indirect comparisons in pharmacoeconomic examination
Abstract
Health technology assessment is a fundamental tool while choosing the most cost- and clinical effective technologies that are being introduced into the health system. The basis for assessment is the data of clinical studies. The experts are interested in not only the effect of a new medical technology, but in its comparison with similar therapeutic approaches. The above is the essence of a comparative study. However, such studies are not common. The article considers the problems associated with the use of indirect comparisons of new medical technologies in the absence of direct comparisons. General recommendations on conducting indirect
comparisons are provided. Possibilities of application of the results obtained in the course of indirect comparisons to conducting pharmacoeconomic analysis are shown.
About the Authors
Yu. E. Balykina
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. S. Kolbin
Pavlov State Medical University of St. Peterburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Горяйнов С.В., Реброва О.Ю. Непрямые сравнения в оценке медицинских технологий Педиатрическая фармакология. 2012; 9 (2): 6-9.
2. Клиническая эпидемиология. Основы доказательной медицины. Пер. с англ. Под ред. Р. Флетчер, С. Флетчер, Э. Вагнер. М. 1998; 347 с.
3. Хабриев Р.У., Ягудина Р.И., Правдюк Н.Г. Оценка технологий здравоохранения. М. 2013; 416 с.
4. 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.
5. Biondi-Zoccai G.G., Agostoni P., Abbate A. et al. Adjusted indirect comparison of intracoronary drug-eluting stents: evidence from a metaanalysis of randomized bare-metal-stent-controlled trials.Int. J. Cardiol. 2005; 100: 119-23.
6. Bucher H.C., Guyatt G.H., Griffith L.E., Walter S.D. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1997; 50 (6): 683-9.
7. Chu et al. Drug efficacy by direct and adjusted indirect comparison to placebo: An illustration by Mycobacterium avium complex prophylaxis in HIV. AIDS Research and Therapy 2011; 8: 14.
8. Cipriani A., Furukawa T.A., Salanti G., et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009; 373: 746-58.
9. Cooper N.J., Sutton A.J., Lu G. Mixed comparison of stroke prevention treatments in individuals with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006; 166: 1269-75.
10. http://www.inahta.net.
11. http://www.ispor.org/awards/13Euro/PMS33-COSTEFFECTIVENESS-OF-TOCILIZUMAB-FOR-THE-MANAGEMENT-OFPATIENTS-WITH-ACTIVE-RHEUMATOID-ARTHRITIS-DESPITEPREVIOUS-DMARD-THERAPY-IN-MEXICO.pdf
12. Jansen J.P., Fleurence R., Devine B. et al. Interpreting indirecttreatment comparisons and network meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices – part 1. Value Health. 2011; 14: 429-437.
13. Jansen J.P., Bergman G.J., Huels J., Olson M. Prevention of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: mixed treatment comparison of bisphosphonate therapies. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2009; 25: 1861-8.
14. Jansen J.P., Fleurence R., Devine B. et al. Conducting indirecttreatment comparisons and network meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices – part 2. Value Health. 2011; 14: 429-437.
15. Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S. et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health. 2012; 15 (6): 954-60.
16. Klimt C. The conduct and principles of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1981; 4: 283-293.
17. Mills E.J., Perri D., Cooper C., et al. Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison metaanalysis. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2009; 8: 23.
18. Norton E.C., Miller M.M., Wang J.J. et al. Rank reversal in indirect comparisons. Value Health. 2012; 15 (8): 1137-40.
19. Song F., Altman D.G., Glenny A.M. et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta analyses. BMJ. 2003; 1: 326.
20. Walley T., Haycox A., Boland A. Pharmacoeconomics. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2004; 216 с.
Review
For citations:
Balykina Yu.E., Kolbin A.S. Using indirect comparisons in pharmacoeconomic examination. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2013;6(4):3-6. (In Russ.)
Views: 785
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Email this article 