Kahoul Riad, Gueyffier François, Amsallem Emmanuel, Haugh Margaret, Marchant Ivanny, Boissel François-Henri, Boissel Jean-Pierre
Novadiscovery SAS, 60 Avenue Rockefeller, 69008 Lyon, France UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, CNRS, UCB Lyon 1 - Bât. Grégor Mendel, 43 bd du 11 novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex, France
UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, CNRS, UCB Lyon 1 - Bât. Grégor Mendel, 43 bd du 11 novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex, France Service de Pharmacologie Clinique et Essais Thérapeutiques, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Faculté de Médecine Laennec, Rue Guillaume Paradin, BP8071, 69376 Lyon cedex 08, France.
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Nov 6;11(100):20140867. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0867.
Healthcare authorities make difficult decisions about how to spend limited budgets for interventions that guarantee the best cost-efficacy ratio. We propose a novel approach for treatment decision-making, OMES-in French: Objectif thérapeutique Modèle Effet Seuil (in English: Therapeutic Objective-Threshold-Effect Model; TOTEM). This approach takes into consideration results from clinical trials, adjusted for the patients' characteristics in treatment decision-making. We compared OMES with the French clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of dyslipidemia with statin in a computer-generated realistic virtual population, representing the adult French population, in terms of the number of all-cause deaths avoided (number of avoided events: NAEs) under treatment and the individual absolute benefit. The total budget was fixed at the annual amount reimbursed by the French social security for statins. With the CPGs, the NAEs was 292 for an annual cost of 122.54 M€ compared with 443 with OMES. For a fixed NAEs, OMES reduced costs by 50% (60.53 M€ yr(-1)). The results demonstrate that OMES is at least as good as, and even better than, the standard CPGs when applied to the same population. Hence the OMES approach is a practical, useful alternative which will help to overcome the limitations of treatment decision-making based uniquely on CPGs.
医疗保健当局在如何将有限预算用于能保证最佳成本效益比的干预措施方面做出艰难决策。我们提出了一种用于治疗决策的新方法,即OMES(法语:Objectif thérapeutique Modèle Effet Seuil;英语:Therapeutic Objective-Threshold-Effect Model;治疗目标-阈值-效应模型;TOTEM)。这种方法在治疗决策中考虑了临床试验结果,并根据患者特征进行了调整。我们在一个计算机生成的、代表法国成年人群体的现实虚拟人群中,就治疗下避免的全因死亡人数(避免事件数:NAEs)和个体绝对获益情况,将OMES与法国他汀类药物治疗血脂异常的临床实践指南(CPGs)进行了比较。总预算固定为法国社会保障部门每年报销他汀类药物的金额。按照CPGs,每年花费1.2254亿欧元时NAEs为292例,而采用OMES时为443例。对于固定的NAEs,OMES可将成本降低50%(每年6053万欧元)。结果表明,当应用于同一人群时,OMES至少与标准CPGs一样好,甚至更好。因此,OMES方法是一种实用且有用的替代方法,将有助于克服仅基于CPGs进行治疗决策的局限性。