Skaer T L, Sclar D A, Robison L M, Galin R S
Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Unit, College of Pharmacy, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Sep;18(3):205-14. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200018030-00001.
Pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of depression have included the development of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), thereby providing alternatives to tricyclic antidepressants. Concurrent with these events have been significant structural (e.g. pharmaceutical formularies) and regulatory (e.g. required pharmacoeconomic evaluations) changes in the delivery, financing, and oversight of healthcare programmes throughout the world. International cost-containment initiatives are increasingly mandating a demonstration of value for money, defined in terms of a measurable health and/or financial outcome, and, in the case of medicines, attributable to a given expenditure, for a given pharmacotherapeutic option. We examine the inherent strengths and weaknesses of 5 study designs used to discern and contrast financial outcomes stemming from the use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for the treatment of depressive illness [randomised controlled trials (RCTs); meta-analyses; decision-analytical models (DAMs); retrospective database investigations; randomised naturalistic inquiry]. We argue that the economic appraisal of pharmacotherapy requires an iterative process extending from the developmental (RCTs; meta-analyses; DAMs) through to the postmarketing phase (database reviews; naturalistic inquiry), thereby resulting in a portfolio of evidence as to the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a given pharmacotherapeutic category (e.g. SSRIs) and/or a specific medication. Database reviews, while nonrandomised, and prospective naturalistic inquiry afford greater insight into the patterns of use and financial merits of prescribing specific pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment of depression within the context of clinical practice as compared with RCTs, meta-analyses and DAMs. The portfolio of evidence to date indicates that the first-line use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression is clinically warranted, and represents value for money.
抑郁症治疗方面的药物治疗进展包括选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI)的研发,从而为三环类抗抑郁药提供了替代药物。与此同时,全球医疗保健项目在提供、融资和监管方面发生了重大的结构变化(如药品处方集)和监管变化(如要求进行药物经济学评估)。国际成本控制举措越来越要求证明资金的价值,这是以可衡量的健康和/或财务结果来定义的,就药物而言,则是指给定药物治疗选择的特定支出所带来的结果。我们研究了5种研究设计的内在优缺点,这些设计用于识别和对比使用抗抑郁药物治疗抑郁症所产生的财务结果[随机对照试验(RCT);荟萃分析;决策分析模型(DAM);回顾性数据库调查;随机自然主义调查]。我们认为,药物治疗的经济评估需要一个从研发阶段(RCT;荟萃分析;DAM)到上市后阶段(数据库审查;自然主义调查)的迭代过程,从而形成一系列关于特定药物治疗类别(如SSRI)和/或特定药物的安全性、有效性和效能的证据。与RCT、荟萃分析和DAM相比,数据库审查虽然是非随机的,但前瞻性自然主义调查能更深入地了解在临床实践背景下为治疗抑郁症而开具特定药物治疗选择的使用模式和财务优点。迄今为止的一系列证据表明,SSRI在抑郁症治疗中的一线使用在临床上是合理的,并且具有资金价值。