Langley P C
Center for Pharmaceutical Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Apr;9(4):341-52. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199609040-00007.
In November 1995, the revised Australian Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals ('the Guidelines') were published. The new document is to be seen as a measured bureaucratic response to the perceived shortcomings of the August 1992 document. The new document sets substantially more demanding and more rigorous evidentiary standards in the reporting of randomised clinical trials and in the justification of the selected evaluation methodology. It also introduces the requirement for a trial- or efficacy-based preliminary economic evaluation, and it recognises the need, under certain circumstances, to model economic evaluations. Although this document has an immediate appeal to those coming to pharmacoeconomic evaluations from a clinical perspective, the approach taken is unlikely to appeal either to economists (the Guidelines continue to discourage cost-benefit analysis) or to health system evaluators working in a competitive delivery environment (such as the US). The Guidelines, in a US environment, would be seen as not only unreasonable in their evidentiary demands and in the task imposed on evaluators, but limited in their failure to take an explicit modeling or system approach to therapy intervention evaluations.
1995年11月,修订后的《澳大利亚药物经济学评价指南》(“《指南》”)发布。新文件可被视为对1992年8月文件中所察觉到的缺点的一种慎重的官方回应。新文件在随机临床试验报告以及所选评价方法的合理性方面设定了更为严格且更为苛刻的证据标准。它还引入了基于试验或疗效的初步经济学评价的要求,并且认识到在某些情况下对经济学评价进行建模的必要性。尽管该文件对于从临床角度进行药物经济学评价的人具有直接吸引力,但所采用的方法不太可能吸引经济学家(《指南》继续不鼓励成本效益分析)或在竞争性服务环境中工作的卫生系统评估人员(如美国)。在美国环境下,《指南》不仅在证据要求和强加给评估人员的任务方面被视为不合理,而且在未能对治疗干预评估采取明确的建模或系统方法方面也存在局限性。