myrwdРеальная клиническая практика: данные и доказательстваReal-World Data & Evidence2782-3784Publishing House OKI10.37489/2782-3784-myrwd-071ZVVPHMmyrwd-100Research ArticleОЦЕНКА ТЕХНОЛОГИЙ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯHEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTСуррогатные конечные точки в анализе экономической эффективности для использования при оценке медицинских технологийSurrogate endpoints in cost-effectiveness analysis for use in medical technology assessmenthttps://orcid.org/0009-0003-4992-559XБушеваТ. И.BushevaT. I.

Татьяна Игоревна Бушева, ординатор

кафедра клинической фармакологи и доказательной медицины

Санкт-Петербург

Tatiana I. Busheva, resident

department of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based

Saint Petersburg

boushewa@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6284-7133КасимоваА. Р.KasimovaA. R.

Алина Рашидовна Касимова, к. м. н., доцент, врач — клинический фармаколог

кафедра клинической фармакологии и доказательной медицины; отделение клинической фармакологии

Санкт-Петербург

Alina R. Kasimova, Cand. Sci. (Med.), associate professor, Clinical pharmacologist

department of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based; Department of Clinical Pharmacology

Saint Petersburg

kasi-alina@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1919-2909КолбинА. С.KolbinA. S.

Алексей Сергеевич Колбин, д. м. н., профессор, зав. кафедрой

кафедра клинической фармакологии и доказательной медицины

Санкт-Петербург

Alexey S. Kolbin, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of Chair

Chair of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based Medicine

Saint Petersburg

alex.kolbin@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-3750-5526ПшеничниковА. Н.PshenichnikovA. N.

Александр Николаевич Пшеничников, врач-терапевт

Санкт-Петербург

Aleksandr N. Pshenichnikov, General Practitioner

Saint Petersburg

pshen007@yandex.ruФГБОУ ВО «Первый Санкт-Петербургский государственный медицинский университет имени академика И. П. Павлова»РоссияFirst Saint Petersburg State Medical University named after Academician I. P. PavlovRussian FederationФГБОУ ВО «Первый Санкт-Петербургский государственный медицинский университет имени академика И. П. Павлова»; ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр травматологии и ортопедии им. Р. Р. Вредена»РоссияFirst Saint Petersburg State Medical University named after Academician I. P. Pavlov; National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after R. R. VredenRussian FederationСПб ГБУЗ «Городская поликлиника ¹ 77 Невского района»РоссияCity Polyclinic No. 77 of Nevsky DistrictRussian Federation202530072025521627Copyright © Бушева Т.И., Касимова А.Р., Колбин А.С., Пшеничников А.Н., 20252025Бушева Т.И., Касимова А.Р., Колбин А.С., Пшеничников А.Н.Busheva T.I., Kasimova A.R., Kolbin A.S., Pshenichnikov A.N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.myrwd.ru/jour/article/view/100

   Анализ экономической целесообразности применения медицинских технологий необходим для принятия рациональных решений в здравоохранении, которые, в свою очередь, способствуют более эффективному распределению ограниченных бюджетных средств и улучшению качества медицинской помощи. Клинико-экономический анализ оценивает соотношение затрат и результатов применения медицинских технологий, что позволяет определить их целесообразность, учитывая влияние на здоровье пациентов, качество услуг и экономические затраты. Один из методов ускоренной оценки экономической эффективности — использование суррогатных конечных точек (СКТ), что позволяет быстрее и безопаснее оценивать новые медицинские технологии. Их использование важно для лиц, принимающих решения в сфере организации здравоохранения, особенно в условиях недостатка данных о долгосрочной эффективности новых технологий. Их применение должно быть обоснованным, с подтверждённой статистической связью между суррогатными и клиническими конечными точками. Недавно был выпущен отчёт, обобщающий актуальные данные по использованию СКТ в анализе экономической эффективности медицинских технологий, что стало основой для данной статьи.

   Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technologies is essential for making rational decisions in healthcare, which in turn contribute to more efficient allocation of limited budgetary resources and improved quality of care. Clinical economic analysis assesses the cost-benefit ratio of medical technologies, which helps determine their feasibility, taking into account the impact on patient health, quality of services and economic costs. One of the methods for accelerated cost-effectiveness assessment is the use of surrogate endpoints (SEP), which allows for faster and safer assessment of new medical technologies. Their use is important for decision makers in healthcare, especially in conditions of a lack of data on the long-term effectiveness of new technologies. Their use should be justified, with a confirmed statistical relationship between surrogate and clinical endpoints. A recent report summarizing current data on the use of SEP in cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technologies served as the basis for this article.

клинико-экономический анализоценка технологий здравоохранениясуррогатные конечные точкиclinical and economic analysishealth technology assessmentsurrogate endpointsReferencesDe Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Contemp Clin Trials. 2001;22(5):485–502.De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Contemp Clin Trials. 2001;22(5):485–502.Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Mar;69(3):89-95. doi: 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Mar;69(3):89-95. doi: 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.Yule MS, Thompson J, Leesahatsawat K, Sousa MS, Anker SD, Arends J, Balstad TR, Brown LR, Bye A, Dajani O, Fallon M, Hjermstad MJ, Jakobsen G, McDonald J, McGovern J, Roeland EJ, Sayers J, Skipworth RJE, Ottestad IO, Philips I, Simpson MR, Solheim TS, Vagnildhaug OM, McMillan D, Laird BJA, Dolan RD; Cancer Cachexia Endpoints Working Group. Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials : Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2024 Jun;15(3):853-867. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13491.Yule MS, Thompson J, Leesahatsawat K, Sousa MS, Anker SD, Arends J, Balstad TR, Brown LR, Bye A, Dajani O, Fallon M, Hjermstad MJ, Jakobsen G, McDonald J, McGovern J, Roeland EJ, Sayers J, Skipworth RJE, Ottestad IO, Philips I, Simpson MR, Solheim TS, Vagnildhaug OM, McMillan D, Laird BJA, Dolan RD; Cancer Cachexia Endpoints Working Group. Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials : Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2024 Jun;15(3):853-867. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13491.Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure Режим доступа: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrogate-endpoints-were-basis-drug-ap-proval-or-licensureTable of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure Режим доступа: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrogate-endpoints-were-basis-drug-ap-proval-or-licensureCanada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), previously the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the US; the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care; the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) in the Netherlands; the Institute for Technology Assessment in Health (IETS) in Colombia; Rubix Health in the US. White paper. Surrogate endpoints in cost-effectiveness analysis for use in health technology assessmentCanada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), previously the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the US; the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care; the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) in the Netherlands; the Institute for Technology Assessment in Health (IETS) in Colombia; Rubix Health in the US. White paper. Surrogate endpoints in cost-effectiveness analysis for use in health technology assessmentKaltenthaler E, Brazier J, De Nigris E, Tumur I, Ferriter M, Beverley C, Parry G, Rooney G, Sutcliffe P. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update : a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(33):iii, xi-xiv, 1-168. doi: 10.3310/hta10330.Kaltenthaler E, Brazier J, De Nigris E, Tumur I, Ferriter M, Beverley C, Parry G, Rooney G, Sutcliffe P. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update : a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(33):iii, xi-xiv, 1-168. doi: 10.3310/hta10330.Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, Rasi G, Saad ED, Taylor RS. Time to Review the Role of Surrogate End Points in Health Policy: State of the Art and the Way Forward. Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):487-495. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011.Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, Rasi G, Saad ED, Taylor RS. Time to Review the Role of Surrogate End Points in Health Policy: State of the Art and the Way Forward. Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):487-495. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011.Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models : A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2009;25(1):6-13. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090023Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models : A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2009;25(1):6-13. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090023Bujkiewicz S, Achana F, Papanikos T, Riley R, & Abrams K. (2019). NICE DSU Technical Support Document 20: Multivariate meta-analysis of summary data for combining treatment effects on correlated outcomes and evaluating surrogate endpoints. Режим доступа: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/multivariate-meta-analysisBujkiewicz S, Achana F, Papanikos T, Riley R, & Abrams K. (2019). NICE DSU Technical Support Document 20: Multivariate meta-analysis of summary data for combining treatment effects on correlated outcomes and evaluating surrogate endpoints. Режим доступа: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/multivariate-meta-analysisMoynihan R. Surrogates under scrutiny: fallible correlations, fatal consequences. BMJ. 2011 Aug 15;343:d5160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5160.Moynihan R. Surrogates under scrutiny: fallible correlations, fatal consequences. BMJ. 2011 Aug 15;343:d5160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5160.Ягудина Р. И., Чибиляев В. А. Использование конечных и суррогатных точек в фармакоэкономических исследованиях. Фармакоэкономика. Современная фармакоэкономика и фармакоэпидемиология. 2010;2:12-18.Yagudina RI, Chibilyaev VA. Use of endpoints and surrogate points in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology. 2010;2:12-18 (In Russ.)Лазебник Л. Б., Гусеин-заде М. Г., Ефремов Л. И. Выбор «Суррогатных» и «Конечных точек» в оценке эффективности медицинских вмешательств. Экспериментальная и клиническая гастроэнтерология. 2011;8:73-79.Lazebnik LB, Gusein-zade MG, Efremov LI. Selection of "Surrogate" and "Endpoints" in Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Medical Interventions. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2011;8:73-79. (In Russ.)Гуркина МВ, Сметанина НС, Румянцев АГ. Экономические методы оценки эффективности медицинских технологий в гематологии. Вопросы гематологии/онкологии и иммунопатологии в педиатрии. 2018;17(2):136-143. doi: 10.24287/1726-1708-2018-17-2-136-143Gurkina MV, Smetanina NS, Rumyntsev AG. Economic methods of medical technology assessment in hematology. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Immunopathology. 2018;17(2):136-143. doi: 10.24287/1726-1708-2018-17-2-136-143Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartsson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH 3rd, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS, Ciani O. Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2024 Jul 9;386:e078525. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078525.Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartsson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH 3rd, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS, Ciani O. Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2024 Jul 9;386:e078525. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078525.Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartsson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH 3rd, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS, Ciani O. Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2024 Jul 9;386:e078524. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078524.Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartsson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH 3rd, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS, Ciani O. Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2024 Jul 9;386:e078524. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078524.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.