Translational research. Prospects in Russia
Abstract
In recent years health care professionals came to understanding that any medical technology should be a subjected of expert evaluation. One of the key issues in the evaluationt of medical technologies is the ability to transfer effectiveness data to efficacy. Effectiveness and efficacy are also a part of translational (operational) research, transferring from basic knowledge to clinical practice. Effectiveness and efficacy studies, as well as translational research usually allow to evaluate the reasonability of the use of medical technology in a defined group of population in terms of clinical outcomes and costs. The problem of fragmented biomedical data can be solved by means of conducting translational (operational) research in which medical technology is evaluated from the perspective of fundamental science. The translation process takes quite a long time, but eventually gives a holistic and comprehensive idea about the investigational medical technology, which will allow its correct implementation into clinical practice and health care system.
About the Authors
A. S. Kolbin
First Pavlov State Medical University of Saint Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. A. Gapeshin
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
S. M. Malyshev
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Garrido MV, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, et al. Health technology assessment and health policy in Europe. WHO; 2010 (in Russian).
2. Habriev RU, Yagudina RI, Pravdyuk NG. Health technology assessment. Moscow: Meditsinskoe informatsionnoe agentstvo; 2013 (in Russian).
3. Belousov YuB, ed. Health Technology Assessment. Moscow: ОКИ; 2013 (in Russian).
4. Kleijnen S, George E, Goulden S, et al. Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Similarities and Differences in 29 Jurisdictions. Value In Health 2012; (15): 954–60.
5. High Level Pharmaceutical Forum. Core principles on relative effectiveness. 2008.
6. Available from: http://www.inahta.net.
7. Wagner P, Srivastava S. New paradigms in translational science research in cancer biomarkers. Translational Research 2012; (4): 343–53.
8. Gartlehner G, Hansen R, Nissman D, et al. A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; (10): 1040–48.
9. Singal A, Higgins P, Waljee A. A Primer on Effectiveness and Efficacy Trials. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology 2014; (5): 1–4.
10. Marchand E, Stice E, Rohde P, et al. Moving from efficacy to effectiveness trials in prevention research. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2011; (1): 32–41.
11. Behnke LM, Solis A, Shulman SA, et al. Targeted Approach to Reducing Overutilization: Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Coronary Artery Disease. Popul Health Manag. 2013; 16(3): 164–8.
12. Stafford RS, Radley DC. The underutilization of cardiac medications of proven benefit, 1990 to 2002. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; (41): 56–61.
13. Hingwala J, Diamond J, Tangri N, et al. Underutilization of peritoneal dialysis: the role of the nephrologist's referral pattern. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013; 28(3): 732–40.
14. Lenfant C. Clinical Research to Clinical Practice – Lost in Translation? N Engl J Med. 2003; (349): 868–74.
15. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40(6): 637–644.
16. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008; 337: a2390.
17. Sox HC. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care 2010; 48 [6 Suppl]: S7–8.
18. Hoagwood K, Hibbs E, Brent D, Jensen P. Introduction to the special section: efficacy and effectiveness in studies of child and adolescent psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1995; (63): 683–87.
19. Gaglio B, Phillips S, Heurtin-Roberts S, et al. How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research. Implementation Science 2014; (9): 96.
20. Keramaris N, Kanakaris N, Tzioupis C, et al. Translational research: From benchside to bedside. Injury 2008; (6): 643–50.
21. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 297(4): 403–6.
22. Balas EA, Boren SA. Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Managing Clincial Knowledge for Healthcare Improvement. Stuttgart; 2000.
23. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, et al. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science 2008; 321(5894): 1298–9.
24. Trochim W, Kane C, Graham MJ, et al. Evaluating translational research: a process marker model. Clin Transl Sci. 2011; 4(3): 153–62.
25. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research – ‘‘blue highways’’ on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 2007; (297): 403–6.
26. Dougherty D, Conway PH. The ‘‘3T’s’’ road map to transform US health care: the ‘‘how’’ of high-quality care. JAMA 2008; (299): 2319–21.
27. Drolet B, Lorenzi N. Translational research: understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Research 2011; (1): 1–5.
28. Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, et al. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genetics in Medicine 2007; 9(10): 665–74.
29. Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 2003; (289): 1278–87.
30. Cao Y. Antiangiogenic cancer therapy: why do mouse and human patients respond in a different way to the same drug? The International Journal of Developmental Biology 2011; (55): 557–62.
31. Wehling M. Assessing the translatability of drug projects: what needs to be scored to predict success? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009; (8): 541–46.
32. Wang P, Heinssen R, Oliveri M, et al. Bridging Bench and Practice: Translational Research for Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 2009; (34): 204–12.
33. Schumacher A, Rujan T, Hoefkens J. A collaborative approach to develop a multi- omics data analytics platform for translational research. Appl Transl Genomic. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2014.09.010.
34. Yao Q., Lyu P., Ma F., el al. Global infometric perspective studies on translational medical research. BMC Medical informatics and Decision Making 2013; (13): 77.
35. Grunseth M, Chen C, Cook S, et al. Surveying the best in translation. Nature Biotechnology 2014; 32(5): 415–18.
36. Report on the Russian Scientific School «Translational Medicine: international experience and development trends in Russia». Moscow. November 3, 2011 (in Russian).
37. Available from: http://www.almazovcentre.ru/?page_id=10962.
38. Kent DM, Alsheikh-Ali A, Hayward RA. Competing risk and heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. Trials 2008, (9): 30.
39. Available from: http://www.re-aim.hnfe.vt.edu/forms/reaim_framework_constructs_checklist.pdf
Review
For citations:
Kolbin A.S., Gapeshin R.A., Malyshev S.M. Translational research. Prospects in Russia. The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products. 2015;(1):40-44. (In Russ.)
Views:
694
Email this article 