Suppr超能文献

沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松复方制剂50/250微克每日两次与布地奈德800微克每日两次治疗成人和青少年哮喘的成本效益。国际研究小组。

Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product 50/250 microg twice daily and budesonide 800 microg twice daily in the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma. International Study Group.

作者信息

Lundbäck B, Jenkins C, Price M J, Thwaites R M

机构信息

Respiratory Unit, National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Respir Med. 2000 Jul;94(7):724-32. doi: 10.1053/rmed.2000.0876.

Abstract

Despite a good understanding of the disease and its treatments, asthma continues to place a large economic burden on healthcare systems. As such, it is important to consider the economic impact of alternative therapeutic options for the treatment of this condition to ensure that scarce resources are used in the most efficient manner possible. Thus, the aim of asthma management from an economic perspective is to reduce the burden of this disease through maximizing health gain with available resources. A prospective economic analysis was conducted as part of a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, comparative trial of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product (SFC) 50/250 microg twice daily vs. budesonide (800 microg twice daily) in adults and adolescents with asthma who were symptomatic despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids at doses of 800-1200 microg day(-1). Treatment effectiveness was measured in terms of successfully-treated weeks, defined as a > or =5% improvement in morning peak expiratory flow, episode-free days (a day without the need for rescue medication, no nocturnal awakening or adverse events) and symptom-free days. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using direct healthcare and drug costs, from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system (1998 prices), with appropriate sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the findings. Overall, SFC produced significantly higher (P<0.001) proportions of successfully-treated weeks, episode-free days and symptom-free days. Direct asthma management costs were similar between the two groups [SEK19.6 ($US2.4) for SFC vs. SEK18.5 (SUS2.2) for budesonide]. The cost per successfully-treated week was lower for SFC than for budesonide [SEK204 ($US24.8) vs. SEK300 ($US36.4) per week], as were the costs per episode-free day [SEK51.1 ($US6.2) vs. SEK75.1 ($US9.1) per day] and symptom-free day [SEK42.2 ($US5.1) vs. SEK53.0 ($US6.4) per day]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that the additional costs to achieve additional benefits with SFC were minimal. Costs per additional successfully-treated week, symptom-free day and episode-free day with SFC were SEK31.6 ($US3.9), SEK9.2 ($US1.1) and SEK7.7 ($US0.9), respectively, relative to budesonide. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were stable over a wide range of assumptions. The results suggest that SFC is a more cost-effective treatment than budesonide in the management of moderate to severe asthma.

摘要

尽管对该疾病及其治疗方法有了很好的了解,但哮喘仍继续给医疗保健系统带来巨大的经济负担。因此,考虑替代治疗方案对这种疾病治疗的经济影响非常重要,以确保稀缺资源得到最有效的利用。因此,从经济角度来看,哮喘管理的目标是通过利用现有资源最大化健康收益来减轻这种疾病的负担。作为一项多中心、随机、双盲、比较试验的一部分,对沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松联合制剂(SFC)50/250微克每日两次与布地奈德(800微克每日两次)进行了前瞻性经济分析,该试验针对的是尽管使用了800 - 1200微克/天(-1)的吸入性糖皮质激素治疗但仍有症状的成年和青少年哮喘患者。治疗效果通过成功治疗周数来衡量,成功治疗周数定义为早晨呼气峰值流速提高≥5%、无发作天数(无需急救药物、无夜间觉醒或不良事件的一天)和无症状天数。成本效益分析使用了瑞典医疗保健系统(1998年价格)的直接医疗保健和药物成本,并进行了适当的敏感性分析以检验研究结果的稳健性。总体而言,SFC产生的成功治疗周数、无发作天数和无症状天数的比例显著更高(P<0.001)。两组之间的直接哮喘管理成本相似[SFC为19.6瑞典克朗(2.4美元),布地奈德为18.5瑞典克朗(2.2美元)]。SFC每成功治疗一周的成本低于布地奈德[每周204瑞典克朗(24.8美元)对300瑞典克朗(36.4美元)],每无发作天数的成本也是如此[每天51.1瑞典克朗(6.2美元)对75.1瑞典克朗(9.1美元)]以及每无症状天数的成本[每天42.2瑞典克朗(5.1美元)对53.0瑞典克朗(6.4美元)]。增量成本效益比表明,使用SFC获得额外益处的额外成本微乎其微。相对于布地奈德,SFC每增加一个成功治疗周、无症状天数和无发作天数的成本分别为31.6瑞典克朗(3.9美元)、9.2瑞典克朗(1.1美元)和7.7瑞典克朗(0.9美元)。敏感性分析表明,在广泛的假设范围内结果是稳定的。结果表明,在中重度哮喘的管理中,SFC比布地奈德是一种更具成本效益的治疗方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验