Langley Paul C
College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota.
Innov Pharm. 2020 Apr 30;11(2). doi: 10.24926/iip.v11i2.3248. eCollection 2020.
One of the features of the ICER stakeholder involvement in the development of ICER evidence reports is the ability for public comment. Unfortunately, and this may just a miscommunication, the replies from ICER to public comments frequently miss the point or fail to provide backup for their claims. The purpose of this commentary is to review ICER's responses to public comments by the author on the just released final evidence report on cystic fibrosis. The message is quite simple: the ICER value assessment framework lacks credibility. It fails to meet the standards of normal science. This is seen in ICERs apparent ignorance or rejection of the axioms of fundamental measurement which point quite clearly to the mathematical impossibility of creating QALYs from generic multiattribute utility scores. The ICER report also fails standards by creating a model from prior assumptions; there is no logical basis for constructing a value assessment claim. Either ICER should withdraw its value claims or admit the dubious basis on which the model is built, as a duty to its readership.
ICER利益相关者参与ICER证据报告制定的特点之一是公众能够发表评论。不幸的是,这可能只是沟通有误,ICER对公众评论的回复常常不得要领,或者未能为其主张提供依据。本评论的目的是回顾ICER对作者就刚刚发布的关于囊性纤维化的最终证据报告所提公众评论的回应。传达的信息很简单:ICER价值评估框架缺乏可信度。它不符合常规科学的标准。这体现在ICER明显忽视或拒绝基本测量的公理上,这些公理清楚地表明从通用多属性效用分数创建质量调整生命年在数学上是不可能的。ICER报告还因从先前假设创建模型而未能达到标准;构建价值评估主张没有逻辑依据。ICER要么撤回其价值主张,要么承认构建该模型的可疑依据,这是对其读者的责任。