Langley P C
Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Clin Ther. 1997 Jul-Aug;19(4):762-9; discussion 760-1. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(97)80100-2.
In a recent issue of Clinical Therapeutics, Dr. Michael F. Drummond argued that the future of pharmacoeconomics "lies in developing both trial-based and modeling studies, and in meeting the needs of decision makers". The purpose of this commentary is to present an alternative scenario. The future of pharmacoeconomics lies in meeting the needs of decision makers; if these needs are to be met, the modeling of new drug impacts becomes the principal task of the pharmacoeconomist. Clinical trials, while important in meeting the safety and efficacy requirements of regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration, are, by their very nature, only an input to the modeling of the impact of new therapies on the costs and outcomes of treating patients within health care systems. While this may be seen-particularly from a clinical paradigm-to be an heretical view, it is the one that I believe will prevail if pharmacoeconomics is to survive as a viable and meaningful discipline.
在最近一期的《临床治疗学》中，迈克尔·F·德拉蒙德博士认为药物经济学的未来“在于开展基于试验和建模的研究，并满足决策者的需求”。本评论的目的是提出另一种设想。药物经济学的未来在于满足决策者的需求；如果要满足这些需求，新药影响的建模就成为药物经济学家的主要任务。临床试验虽然在满足美国食品药品监督管理局等监管机构的安全性和有效性要求方面很重要，但就其本质而言，只是新疗法对医疗保健系统中患者治疗成本和结果影响建模的一个输入。虽然这可能被视为一种异端观点——尤其是从临床范式来看——但我认为，如果药物经济学要作为一门可行且有意义的学科生存下去，这一观点将占上风。
