Nicholson A, Berger K, Bohn R, Carcao M, Fischer K, Gringeri A, Hoots K, Mantovani L, Schramm W, van Hout B A, Willan A R, Feldman B M
Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Haemophilia. 2008 Jan;14(1):127-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2007.01562.x. Epub 2007 Nov 13.
The need for clearly reported studies evaluating the cost of prophylaxis and its overall outcomes has been recommended from previous literature.
To establish minimal ''core standards'' that can be followed when conducting and reporting economic evaluations of hemophilia prophylaxis.
Ten members of the IPSG Economic Analysis Working Group participated in a consensus process using the Nominal Groups Technique (NGT). The following topics relating to the economic analysis of prophylaxis studies were addressed; Whose perspective should be taken? Which is the best methodological approach? Is micro- or macro-costing the best costing strategy? What information must be presented about costs and outcomes in order to facilitate local and international interpretation?
The group suggests studies on the economic impact of prophylaxis should be viewed from a societal perspective and be reported using a Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) (with consideration of also reporting Cost Benefit Analysis [CBA]). All costs that exceed $500 should be used to measure the costs of prophylaxis (macro strategy) including items such as clotting factor costs, hospitalizations, surgical procedures, productivity loss and number of days lost from school or work. Generic and disease specific quality of lífe and utility measures should be used to report the outcomes of the study.
The IPSG has suggested minimal core standards to be applied to the reporting of economic evaluations of hemophilia prophylaxis. Standardized reporting will facilitate the comparison of studies and will allow for more rational policy decisions and treatment choices.
以往文献推荐需要有评估预防治疗成本及其总体结果的明确报告研究。
建立在进行和报告血友病预防治疗的经济评估时可遵循的最低“核心标准”。
国际血栓与止血学会（ISSG）经济分析工作组的十名成员采用名义群体技术（NGT）参与了一个共识达成过程。讨论了与预防治疗研究经济分析相关的以下主题：应采用谁的视角？哪种是最佳方法学途径？微观成本核算还是宏观成本核算是最佳成本核算策略？为便于国内和国际解读，关于成本和结果必须呈现哪些信息？
该小组建议预防治疗经济影响的研究应从社会视角看待，并采用成本效用分析（CUA）进行报告（同时考虑也报告成本效益分析[CBA]）。所有超过500美元的成本都应用于衡量预防治疗成本（宏观策略），包括凝血因子成本、住院、手术、生产力损失以及旷课或旷工天数等项目。应使用通用和疾病特异性生活质量及效用指标来报告研究结果。
国际血栓与止血学会（ISSG）建议将最低核心标准应用于血友病预防治疗经济评估的报告。标准化报告将便于研究比较，并有助于做出更合理的政策决策和治疗选择。
