Sullivan Sean D, Lee Todd A, Blough David K, Finkelstein Jonathan A, Lozano Paula, Inui Thomas S, Fuhlbrigge Anne L, Carey Vincent J, Wagner Ed, Weiss Kevin B
Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program and Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 May;159(5):428-34. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.5.428.
A decision to implement innovative disease management interventions in health plans often requires evidence of clinical benefit and financial impact. The Pediatric Asthma Care Patient Outcomes Research Team II trial evaluated 2 asthma care strategies: a peer leader-based physician behavior change intervention (PLE) and a practice-based redesign called the planned asthma care intervention (PACI).
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.
This was a 3-arm, cluster randomized trial conducted in 42 primary care practices. A total of 638 children (age range, 3-17 years) with mild to moderate persistent asthma were followed up for 2 years. Practices were randomized to PLE (n = 226), PACI (n = 213), or usual care (n = 199). The primary outcome was symptom-free days (SFDs). Costs included asthma-related health care utilization and intervention costs.
Annual costs per patient were as follows: PACI, USD 1292; PLE, USD 504; and usual care, USD 385. The difference in annual SFDs was 6.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6 to 16.9 days) for PLE vs usual care and 13.3 days (95% CI, 2.1-24.7 days) for PACI vs usual care. Compared with usual care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 18 per SFD gained for PLE (95% CI, USD 5.21-dominated) and USD 68 per SFD gained for PACI (95% CI, USD 37.36-361.16).
Results of this study show that it is possible to increase SFDs in children and move organizations toward guideline recommendations on asthma control in settings where most children are receiving controller medications at baseline. However, the improvements were realized with an increase in the costs associated with asthma care.
在健康计划中实施创新性疾病管理干预措施的决策通常需要有临床益处和财务影响的证据。儿科哮喘护理患者结局研究团队II试验评估了两种哮喘护理策略:一种基于同伴领导者的医生行为改变干预措施(PLE)和一种称为计划哮喘护理干预措施(PACI)的基于实践的重新设计。
评估这些干预措施的成本效益。
这是一项在42个初级保健机构中进行的三臂整群随机试验。共有638名年龄在3至17岁之间的轻度至中度持续性哮喘儿童接受了2年的随访。这些机构被随机分为PLE组(n = 226)、PACI组(n = 213)或常规护理组(n = 199)。主要结局是无症状天数(SFDs)。成本包括与哮喘相关的医疗保健利用和干预成本。
每位患者的年度成本如下:PACI组为1292美元;PLE组为504美元;常规护理组为385美元。PLE组与常规护理组相比,年度SFDs的差异为6.5天(95%置信区间[CI],-3.6至16.9天),PACI组与常规护理组相比为13.3天(95%CI,2.1 - 24.7天)。与常规护理相比,PLE组每增加一个SFD的增量成本效益比为18美元(95%CI,5.21美元 - 占优),PACI组每增加一个SFD的增量成本效益比为68美元(95%CI,37.36 - 361.16美元)。
本研究结果表明,在大多数儿童基线时接受控制药物治疗的环境中,有可能增加儿童的SFDs,并使各机构朝着哮喘控制的指南建议迈进。然而,这些改善是伴随着与哮喘护理相关的成本增加而实现的。