Scott G, Scott H M
W. Guy Scott and Associates Limited, Wellington, New Zealand.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1997 Dec;12(6):667-74. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199712060-00006.
The aim of this study was to apply the findings of the European Stroke Prevention Study 2 (ESPS-2) to a paper that quantified and described the annual cost of ischaemic stroke in New Zealand, and to compare the cost of alternative drug regimens in the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke. Comparisons were made between the costs of low-dosage aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) monotherapy and a combination of modified-release dipyridamole and low-dosage aspirin. Differences in undiscounted costs were calculated over a 2-year period. The New Zealand cost per stroke event was multiplied by the ESPS-2 incremental reduction in stroke events to derive the cost of strokes avoided. As the focus of the paper was on direct medical costs, the primary perspective adopted was that of a healthcare provider or funder, but a societal perspective was also considered by evaluation of direct nonmedical and indirect costs. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, combination therapy generated incremental net direct costs of 18.22 New Zealand dollars ($NZ) per patient or $NZ18,223 per 1000 patients. However, individually, each treatment regimen resulted in direct cost savings when compared with placebo: combination therapy $NZ905.16 per patient; aspirin monotherapy $NZ923.39 per patient (a difference between the 2 regimens of $NZ18.22 per patient). Total direct and indirect incremental cost savings were $NZ40.96 per patient, and $NZ40,963 per 1000 patients, for the combination therapy. The analysis demonstrates that changing patients from low-dosage aspirin to a combination therapy of modified-release dipyridamole plus low-dosage aspirin would result in a small rise in incremental direct costs (using our conservative assumptions relating to hospital and continuing institutional care costs). If less conservative unit cost assumptions were adopted, a more likely outcome would be a saving in direct incremental costs of up to $NZ400 per patient treated.
本研究的目的是将欧洲卒中预防研究2(ESPS - 2)的结果应用于一篇对新西兰缺血性卒中年度成本进行量化和描述的论文中,并比较缺血性卒中二级预防中替代药物治疗方案的成本。对低剂量阿司匹林(乙酰水杨酸)单一疗法与缓释双嘧达莫和低剂量阿司匹林联合疗法的成本进行了比较。在两年期间计算了未折现成本的差异。将新西兰每例卒中事件的成本乘以ESPS - 2中卒中事件的增量减少量,以得出避免卒中的成本。由于该论文的重点是直接医疗成本,所以采用的主要视角是医疗保健提供者或资助者的视角,但也通过评估直接非医疗和间接成本来考虑社会视角。与阿司匹林单一疗法相比,联合疗法每位患者产生的增量净直接成本为18.22新西兰元($NZ),或每1000例患者为$NZ18,223。然而,单独来看,与安慰剂相比,每种治疗方案都能节省直接成本:联合疗法每位患者节省$NZ905.16;阿司匹林单一疗法每位患者节省$NZ923.39(两种方案之间每位患者相差$NZ18.22)。联合疗法每位患者的直接和间接增量成本总节省为$NZ40.96,每1000例患者为$NZ40,963。分析表明,将患者从低剂量阿司匹林改为缓释双嘧达莫加低剂量阿司匹林的联合疗法会导致增量直接成本略有上升(基于我们对医院和持续机构护理成本的保守假设)。如果采用不那么保守的单位成本假设,更可能的结果是每位接受治疗的患者直接增量成本节省高达$NZ400。