• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

氨氯地平与依那普利治疗冠状动脉疾病且血压正常患者的成本分析:CAMELOT经济子研究的结果

Cost analysis of amlodipine versus enalapril in patients with coronary artery disease and normal blood pressure: findings from the CAMELOT economic substudy.

作者信息

Menzin Joseph, Boulanger Luke, Tang Simon, Thakker Kamlesh, Nissen Steven E

机构信息

Boston Health Economics, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008;6(2-3):157-62. doi: 10.1007/BF03256130.

DOI:10.1007/BF03256130
PMID:19231908
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To analyse 2-year hospitalization and cost data collected during a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing amlodipine, enalapril and placebo in normotensive patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

All patients who were enrolled in the CAMELOT study were included in this economic substudy. Patients with CAD and normal blood pressure were randomized to amlodipine, enalapril or placebo, and followed up for 24 months (between 1999 and 2004). Data on hospitalizations and medication use were obtained from the clinical trial. Costs were assigned from secondary sources. Total costs ($US, year 2004 values) were estimated as the sum of costs associated with cardiovascular hospitalizations, study medications and concomitant cardiovascular medications. Costs and resource use were analysed by treatment arm overall and for selected patient subgroups. Cost differences were evaluated using nonparametric bootstrap techniques.

RESULTS

Of 1991 patients enrolled, 663 were treated with amlodipine, 673 were treated with enalapril and 655 were treated with placebo. Significantly fewer patients were hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons in the amlodipine group (16.4%) than in the placebo group (22.7%; p < 0.01), but not compared with the enalapril group (20.1%; p = 0.09). The amlodipine group also had numerically fewer days in hospital per patient (1.1) than the enalapril (1.3) and placebo (1.5) groups. Mean 2-year per-patient costs in the amlodipine group were estimated to be $US 609 and $US 717 lower than for the placebo and enalapril groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that use of amlodipine may reduce costs of care among CAD patients with normal blood pressure.

摘要

目的

分析在一项前瞻性、双盲、随机、对照试验中收集的2年住院及费用数据,该试验比较了氨氯地平、依那普利和安慰剂在患有冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的血压正常患者中的疗效。

方法

所有纳入CAMELOT研究的患者均纳入本经济子研究。患有CAD且血压正常的患者被随机分为氨氯地平组、依那普利组或安慰剂组,并随访24个月(1999年至2004年)。住院和用药数据来自临床试验。费用从二级来源获取。总成本(以2004年美元价值计)估计为与心血管住院、研究用药及伴随的心血管药物相关的费用总和。按治疗组总体及选定的患者亚组分析费用和资源使用情况。使用非参数自助法技术评估费用差异。

结果

在纳入的1991例患者中,663例接受氨氯地平治疗,673例接受依那普利治疗,655例接受安慰剂治疗。氨氯地平组因心血管原因住院的患者明显少于安慰剂组(16.4%比22.7%;p<0.01),但与依那普利组(20.1%;p = 0.09)相比无显著差异。氨氯地平组每位患者的住院天数在数值上也少于依那普利组(1.3天)和安慰剂组(1.5天)。氨氯地平组每位患者2年的平均费用估计分别比安慰剂组和依那普利组低609美元和717美元。

结论

这些结果表明,使用氨氯地平可能降低血压正常的CAD患者的护理费用。

相似文献

1
Cost analysis of amlodipine versus enalapril in patients with coronary artery disease and normal blood pressure: findings from the CAMELOT economic substudy.氨氯地平与依那普利治疗冠状动脉疾病且血压正常患者的成本分析:CAMELOT经济子研究的结果
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008;6(2-3):157-62. doi: 10.1007/BF03256130.
2
Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial.抗高血压药物对冠心病且血压正常患者心血管事件的影响:CAMELOT研究:一项随机对照试验
JAMA. 2004 Nov 10;292(18):2217-25. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.18.2217.
3
Antihypertensive therapy and regression of coronary artery disease: insights from the Comparison of Amlodipine versus Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis (CAMELOT) and Norvasc for Regression of Manifest Atherosclerotic Lesions by Intravascular Sonographic Evaluation (NORMALISE) trials.抗高血压治疗与冠状动脉疾病的消退:氨氯地平与依那普利对比以限制血栓形成发生率(CAMELOT)试验及氨氯地平通过血管内超声评估使明显动脉粥样硬化病变消退(NORMALISE)试验的见解
Am Heart J. 2006 Dec;152(6):1059-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.07.022.
4
Comparison of health costs associated with treatment of hypertension with a calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the United States and Japan.美国和日本使用钙通道阻滞剂与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂治疗高血压的健康成本比较。
Hypertens Res. 2006 May;29(5):333-8. doi: 10.1291/hypres.29.333.
5
An economic evaluation of the JNC hypertension guidelines using data from a randomized controlled trial. Joint National Committee.利用一项随机对照试验的数据对美国国家联合委员会高血压指南进行的经济评估。美国国家联合委员会。
J Am Board Fam Pract. 1999 Mar-Apr;12(2):105-14. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.12.2.105.
6
The pharmacoeconomic impact of amlodipine use on coronary artery disease.氨氯地平用于冠状动脉疾病的药物经济学影响。
Pharmacol Res. 2006 Aug;54(2):158-63. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2006.04.002. Epub 2006 May 1.
7
[Patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: amlodipine vs. enalapril -- regarding the contribution in DMW 4/2005].冠心病与血压正常患者:氨氯地平与依那普利——关于对2005年第4期《糖尿病医学》的贡献
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2005 May 20;130(20):1279; author reply 1279-80. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-868720.
8
Hospital use and costs among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy in the first prospective randomized amlodipine survival evaluation study.在首个前瞻性随机氨氯地平生存评估研究中,非缺血性心肌病患者的医院使用情况及费用
Clin Ther. 1999 Jul;21(7):1254-65. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)80027-2.
9
A retrospective analysis comparing the costs and cost effectiveness of amlodipine and enalapril in the treatment of hypertension.一项比较氨氯地平和依那普利治疗高血压的成本及成本效益的回顾性分析。
Manag Care Interface. 2001 Mar;14(3):82-7.
10
Enalapril/amlodipine combination in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients: a prospective randomized trial.依那普利/氨氯地平联合用药治疗环孢素治疗的肾移植受者:一项前瞻性随机试验。
Clin Transplant. 2007 Mar-Apr;21(2):277-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2007.00643.x.