• 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

Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of lowering serum cholesterol levels: the case of simvastatin and cholestyramine in The Netherlands.

作者信息

Martens L L, Rutten F F, Erkelens D W, Ascoop C A

机构信息

Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 1990 Mar 20;65(12):27F-32F. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(90)91252-2.

DOI:10.1016/0002-9149(90)91252-2
PMID:2107736
Abstract

To assess the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-reducing therapy with cholestyramine and simvastatin in the primary prevention of coronary artery disease in The Netherlands, a model of coronary artery disease incidence was used based on multivariate logistic risk functions from the Framingham study. For men with initial cholesterol levels of 8 mmol/liter, the cost per year of life saved of cholestyramine, expressed in Dutch guilders (NLG; 1 NLG = $0.50), ranges from approximately NLG 208,000 to NLG 483,000, depending on the patient's age at initiation of therapy. For simvastatin, cost-effectiveness ranges from NLG 46,000 to NLG 98,000 per year of life saved among this group of men. Similar differences between simvastatin and cholestyramine therapy prevail among women, although the costs per year of life saved for both agents are considerably higher. These results suggest that (1) simvastatin is substantially more cost effective than is cholestyramine; (2) simvastatin therapy compares favorably with other generally accepted medical practices, especially if treatment is initiated at an early age; and (3) as its long-term safety record becomes more established, simvastatin may become accepted as a drug of first choice in the treatment of persons with elevated serum cholesterol levels.

摘要

相似文献

1
Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of lowering serum cholesterol levels: the case of simvastatin and cholestyramine in The Netherlands.
Am J Cardiol. 1990 Mar 20;65(12):27F-32F. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(90)91252-2.
2
Cost effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy in The Netherlands. Simvastatin versus cholestyramine.
Am J Med. 1989 Oct 16;87(4A):54S-58S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(89)80600-x.
3
[Cost-effectiveness of lowering of blood cholesterol using simvastatin and cholestyramine].[使用辛伐他汀和考来烯胺降低血液胆固醇的成本效益]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1991 Apr 13;135(15):655-9.
4
Cholesterol-lowering therapy after heart transplantation: a 12-month randomized trial.心脏移植后降胆固醇治疗:一项为期12个月的随机试验。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 1995 Jul-Aug;14(4):613-22.
5
Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group.辛伐他汀治疗降低冠心病患者胆固醇水平的成本效益。斯堪的纳维亚辛伐他汀生存研究组。
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 30;336(5):332-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199701303360503.
6
Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin versus cholestyramine: results for Sweden.辛伐他汀与考来烯胺的成本效益:瑞典的研究结果
Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Mar;1(3):213-6. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199201030-00009.
7
Cost-effectiveness analysis of cholesterol-lowering therapies in Spain.西班牙降胆固醇疗法的成本效益分析。
Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2006;6(3):177-88. doi: 10.2165/00129784-200606030-00005.
8
Clinical experience with simvastatin compared with cholestyramine.辛伐他汀与考来烯胺的临床经验比较。
Drugs. 1988;36 Suppl 3:87-92. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198800363-00018.
9
Effects of simvastatin and cholestyramine on lipoprotein profile in hyperlipidaemia of nephrotic syndrome.
Lancet. 1988 Dec 10;2(8624):1335-8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)90870-7.
10
Effects of simvastatin and cholestyramine in familial and nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia. Multicenter Group I.辛伐他汀和消胆胺对家族性和非家族性高胆固醇血症的影响。多中心研究组I
Arch Intern Med. 1990 Feb;150(2):341-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Systematic Review of Validity Assessments of Framingham Risk Score Results in Health Economic Modelling of Lipid-Modifying Therapies in Europe.欧洲降脂治疗药物健康经济学模型中弗雷明汉风险评分结果的有效性评估系统综述。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Feb;36(2):205-213. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0578-1.
2
Trends in total cholesterol screening and in prescribing lipid-lowering drugs in general practice in the period 1994-2003.1994年至2003年期间全科医疗中总胆固醇筛查及降脂药物处方的趋势。
BMC Fam Pract. 2008 Jun 30;9:39. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-9-39.
3
Economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs: a critical and systematic review.
降胆固醇药物的经济学评估:一项批判性的系统综述。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):187-99. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725030-00002.
4
A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of statins in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in the primary care setting in Spain.西班牙基层医疗环境中他汀类药物治疗高胆固醇血症的药物经济学评价
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(3):275-87. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523030-00007.
5
[Cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin against simvastatin as hypolipemic treatment in hypercholesterolemic patients in primary care].阿托伐他汀与辛伐他汀作为基层医疗中高胆固醇血症患者降血脂治疗药物的成本效益分析
Aten Primaria. 2001 Jan;27(1):18-24. doi: 10.1016/s0212-6567(01)78767-7.
6
Pharmacoeconomics of lipid-lowering agents for primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.用于冠状动脉疾病一级和二级预防的降脂药物的药物经济学
Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Jan;15(1):47-74. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199915010-00004.
7
Cost effectiveness of coronary heart disease prevention strategies in adults.成人冠心病预防策略的成本效益
Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 Jul;14(1):27-48. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199814010-00004.
8
Simvastatin. A reappraisal of its cost effectiveness in dyslipidaemia and coronary heart disease.辛伐他汀。对其在血脂异常和冠心病治疗中成本效益的重新评估。
Pharmacoeconomics. 1997 Jan;11(1):89-110. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199711010-00010.
9
The 4S study and its pharmacoeconomic implications.4S研究及其药物经济学意义。
Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Feb;9(2):101-5. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199609020-00001.
10
Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: a critical appraisal of seven studies on cholesterol-lowering agents.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Oct;2(4):270-8. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199202040-00003.