Suppr超能文献

新型流感治疗策略的成本效益

Cost-effectiveness of newer treatment strategies for influenza.

作者信息

Smith Kenneth J, Roberts Mark S

机构信息

Section of Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, Division of General Internal Medicine, and the Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.

出版信息

Am J Med. 2002 Sep;113(4):300-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01222-6.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of influenza, such as rapid testing and neuraminidase inhibitor therapy, are available, but their place in clinical practice and their cost-effectiveness have not been determined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of these newer interventions, we used a decision model that compared several influenza management strategies: no testing or treatment, amantadine or rimantadine treatment without testing, testing then amantadine or rimantadine treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment without testing, or testing then neuraminidase inhibitor treatment. Antiviral therapy began within 48 hours in febrile patients with characteristic symptoms of influenza. We assumed that antiviral treatment did not change rates of influenza complication or mortality, and chose parameter values in the baseline analysis to bias slightly against antiviral treatment and toward testing strategies.

RESULTS

In the baseline analysis, testing strategies are more expensive and less effective than treatment strategies. Amantadine costs $9.06 per illness day avoided or $11.60 per quality-adjusted day gained. Compared with amantadine, zanamivir costs $198 per illness day avoided or $185 per quality-adjusted day gained, whereas oseltamivir costs $252 per illness day avoided or $235 per quality-adjusted day gained. In elderly patients who require reduced dosage, rimantadine costs $128 per quality-adjusted day gained compared with amantadine. In younger patients, amantadine is favored if the likelihood of influenza A is >67%; otherwise, neuraminidase inhibitors are favored. Testing strategies are more costly and less effective when the influenza probability is >30%. No testing or treatment is favored if the influenza probability is <32% and the influenza utility is >0.77. In elderly patients, amantadine is favored over rimantadine if the utility of medication side effects is >0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiviral treatment of influenza without rapid testing is reasonable economically in febrile patients with typical symptoms during influenza season. The choice of antiviral agent depends on age, the likelihood of influenza A, and the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted day gained.

摘要

目的

流感的诊断和治疗已有一些新进展,如快速检测和神经氨酸酶抑制剂疗法,但它们在临床实践中的地位及其成本效益尚未确定。

材料与方法

为评估这些新干预措施的成本效益,我们使用了一个决策模型,比较了几种流感管理策略:不进行检测或治疗、不检测直接使用金刚烷胺或金刚乙胺治疗、检测后使用金刚烷胺或金刚乙胺治疗、不检测直接使用神经氨酸酶抑制剂治疗、检测后使用神经氨酸酶抑制剂治疗。发热且有典型流感症状的患者在48小时内开始抗病毒治疗。我们假定抗病毒治疗不会改变流感并发症发生率或死亡率,并在基线分析中选择参数值,使其略微不利于抗病毒治疗而有利于检测策略。

结果

在基线分析中,检测策略比治疗策略成本更高且效果更差。金刚烷胺每避免一天发病的成本为9.06美元,或每获得一个质量调整生命日的成本为11.60美元。与金刚烷胺相比,扎那米韦每避免一天发病的成本为198美元,或每获得一个质量调整生命日的成本为185美元,而奥司他韦每避免一天发病的成本为252美元,或每获得一个质量调整生命日的成本为235美元。在需要降低剂量的老年患者中,与金刚烷胺相比,金刚乙胺每获得一个质量调整生命日的成本为128美元。在年轻患者中,如果甲型流感的可能性>67%,则倾向于使用金刚烷胺;否则,倾向于使用神经氨酸酶抑制剂。当流感概率>30%时,检测策略成本更高且效果更差。如果流感概率<32%且流感效用>0.77,则倾向于不进行检测或治疗。在老年患者中,如果药物副作用的效用>0.94,则金刚烷胺优于金刚乙胺。

结论

在流感季节,对于有典型症状的发热患者,不进行快速检测而直接进行抗病毒治疗在经济上是合理的。抗病毒药物的选择取决于年龄、甲型流感的可能性以及每获得一个质量调整生命日的支付意愿。

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