McKenna Claire, Bojke Laura, Manca Andrea, Adebajo Adewale, Dickson John, Helliwell Philip, Morton Veronica, Russell Ian, Torgerson David, Watson Judith
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009 May;48(5):558-63. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep008. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of providing practical training to general practitioners (GPs) in shoulder problems, and administering a local anaesthetic (lignocaine) vs steroidal (cortisone) injection.
A cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial with a factorial design, in general practices across five centres within the UK. A total of 155 participant GPs were randomized to receive training or no training with 200 participants randomized to either lignocaine or cortisone. Health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained over 1 year estimated from a health system and a societal perspective were the main outcomes measured.
Over 1 year, training GPs costs on average an additional pound sterling 211 (95% credibility interval - pound sterling 237, pound sterling 661) than no training and produces higher mean QALYs (0.075; -0.004, 0.154) per patient, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound sterling 2813 per QALY gained for trained GPs. Over the same period of 1 year, lignocaine costs an average of pound sterling 122 more (- pound sterling 232, pound sterling 476) than cortisone and produces virtually no differential gain in mean QALYs (0.001; -0.068, 0.070), yielding an incremental cost per QALY gained of pound sterling 122,000 for lignocaine compared with cortisone. Across a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, cortisone is as cost effective to inject as lignocaine. The probability that training is cost effective is above 0.95 at thresholds above pound sterling 20,000.
Providing practical training to GPs about shoulder problems is cost effective and there is little uncertainty regarding this decision. The choice between lignocaine and cortisone is more uncertain and it is likely that there is significant value of further research to reduce this uncertainty.
The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number is 58 537 244.
评估为全科医生(GPs)提供肩部问题实践培训以及使用局部麻醉剂(利多卡因)与类固醇(可的松)注射的成本效益。
在英国五个中心的全科诊所进行了一项成本效益分析,该分析与一项采用析因设计的整群随机试验同时进行。共有155名参与的全科医生被随机分配接受培训或不接受培训,200名参与者被随机分配接受利多卡因或可的松治疗。从卫生系统和社会角度估计的1年内的医疗保健成本、质量调整生命年(QALYs)以及每获得一个QALY的增量成本是主要测量结果。
在1年期间,培训全科医生平均比不培训多花费211英镑(95%可信区间为 -237英镑,661英镑),并且每位患者产生更高的平均QALYs(0.075;-0.004,0.154),对于接受培训的全科医生,每获得一个QALY的增量成本效益比为2813英镑。在相同的1年期间,利多卡因的成本平均比可的松高122英镑(-232英镑,476英镑),并且在平均QALYs方面几乎没有差异增益(0.001;-0.068,0.070),与可的松相比,利多卡因每获得一个QALY的增量成本为122,000英镑。在一系列成本效益阈值范围内,注射可的松与利多卡因具有相同的成本效益。在阈值高于20,000英镑时,培训具有成本效益的概率高于0.95。
为全科医生提供关于肩部问题的实践培训具有成本效益,并且关于这一决策几乎没有不确定性。利多卡因和可的松之间的选择更具不确定性,很可能进一步的研究具有显著价值以减少这种不确定性。
国际标准随机对照试验编号为58 537 244。