Sculpher Mark, Manca Andrea, Abbott Jason, Fountain Jayne, Mason Su, Garry Ray
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD.
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):134. doi: 10.1136/bmj.37942.601331.EE. Epub 2004 Jan 7.
To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal).
Cost effectiveness analysis based on two parallel trials: laparoscopic (n = 324) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (n = 163); and laparoscopic (n = 573) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (n = 286).
1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy.
One year costs estimated from NHS perspective. Health outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs based on women's responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and at three points during up to 52 weeks' follow up.
Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 401 pounds sterling (708 dollars; 571 euros) more (95% confidence interval 271 pounds sterling to 542 pounds sterling) than vaginal hysterectomy but produced little difference in mean QALYs (0.0015, -0.015 to 0.018). Mean differences in cost and QALYs generated an incremental cost per QALY gained of 267 333 pounds sterling (471 789 dollars; 380 437 euros). The probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective was below 50% for a large range of values of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 186 pounds sterling (328 dollars; 265 euros) more than abdominal hysterectomy, although 95% confidence intervals crossed zero (-26 pounds sterling to 375 pounds sterling); there was little difference in mean QALYs (0.007, -0.008 to 0.023), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of 26 571 pounds sterling (46 893 dollars; 37 813 euros). If the NHS is willing to pay 30 000 pounds sterling for an additional QALY, the probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective is 56%.
Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective relative to vaginal hysterectomy. Its cost effectiveness relative to the abdominal procedure is finely balanced.
评估腹腔镜子宫切除术与传统子宫切除术(腹部或阴道)相比的成本效益。
基于两项平行试验的成本效益分析:腹腔镜手术(n = 324)与阴道子宫切除术(n = 163)对比;以及腹腔镜手术(n = 573)与腹部子宫切除术(n = 286)对比。
1346名因非恶性疾病需要进行子宫切除术的女性。
从英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)角度估算的一年成本。健康结局以质量调整生命年(QALYs)表示,基于女性在基线以及长达52周随访期间的三个时间点对EQ - 5D的回答。
腹腔镜子宫切除术平均比阴道子宫切除术成本高401英镑(708美元;571欧元)(95%置信区间为271英镑至542英镑),但在平均质量调整生命年方面差异不大(0.0015,-0.015至0.018)。成本和质量调整生命年的平均差异导致每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本为267333英镑(471789美元;380437欧元)。对于为额外一个质量调整生命年支付意愿的大范围值,腹腔镜子宫切除术具有成本效益的概率低于50%。腹腔镜子宫切除术平均比腹部子宫切除术成本高186英镑(328美元;265欧元),尽管95%置信区间跨越零(-26英镑至375英镑);平均质量调整生命年差异不大(0.007,-0.008至0.023),导致每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本为26571英镑(46893美元;37813欧元)。如果英国国家医疗服务体系愿意为额外一个质量调整生命年支付30000英镑,腹腔镜子宫切除术具有成本效益的概率为56%。
相对于阴道子宫切除术,腹腔镜子宫切除术不具有成本效益。其相对于腹部手术的成本效益处于微妙的平衡状态。