pbe consultants in Healthcare, V.lo Agnello 1, 37121, Verona, Italy,
Clin Drug Investig. 2000;20(2):109-21. doi: 10.2165/00044011-200020020-00006.
The objective of this analysis was to compare the costs, benefits and cost effectiveness of two dosage regimens of cerivastatin (0.2 and 0.4 mg/day) with Italian National Health Service (NHS) reimbursed comparative statins in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease in Italy. This study is part of a broader analysis undertaken in five European countries.
A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed, as the interventions have the same treatment objectives but vary in terms of magnitude of effectiveness. This CEA compared alternative treatments both in the NHS and from societal perspectives.
A coronary heart disease risk assessment model, based on intervention study data from the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, was used. This was augmented with demographic, disease, life expectancy, pharmacological and economic data for patients with coronary heart disease in Italy.
In terms of average cost effectiveness, our analysis showed that cerivastatin 0.2 mg/day compared favourably with pravastatin 20 mg/day, and compared similarly with simvastatin 20 mg/day in all age groups studied. The study also demonstrated that cerivastatin 0.4 mg/day compared favourably with both simvastatin 40 mg/day and pravastatin 20 mg/day. These results were consistent for both the NHS and societal perspective.The incremental cost per life-year gained [in 1998 Italian lire (L)] of simvastatin versus cerivastatin ranged from about L40 million [or Euro (Eur)20 658] to greater than L650 million (or Eur335 697). Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/day was more cost-effective than pravastatin 20 mg/day, while the incremental cost per life-year gained for cerivastatin 0.4 mg/day versus pravastatin 20 mg/day ranged from L11.1 million (or Eur5733) to L31.8 million (or Eur16 423) in the three age groups (35 to 39 years, 50 to 54 years and 65 to 69 years) for both perspectives.
The results of this study showed that in primary prevention, average cost-effectiveness ratios of cerivastatin compared favourably with those of the other pharmacological interventions available on the Italian market.
本分析旨在比较辛伐他汀(0.2 和 0.4mg/天)与意大利国民保健制度(NHS)报销的比较他汀类药物在意大利冠心病一级预防中的成本、效益和成本效益。本研究是在五个欧洲国家进行的更广泛分析的一部分。
进行了成本效益分析(CEA),因为干预措施具有相同的治疗目标,但在效果的大小上有所不同。该 CEA 比较了 NHS 和社会视角下的替代治疗方法。
基于脂质研究诊所冠心病一级预防试验的干预研究数据,使用了冠心病风险评估模型。该模型还结合了意大利冠心病患者的人口统计学、疾病、预期寿命、药理学和经济数据。
就平均成本效益而言,我们的分析表明,辛伐他汀 0.2mg/天与普伐他汀 20mg/天相比具有优势,并且在所有研究年龄组中与辛伐他汀 20mg/天相比也具有相似的优势。该研究还表明,辛伐他汀 0.4mg/天与辛伐他汀 40mg/天和普伐他汀 20mg/天相比具有优势。这些结果在 NHS 和社会视角下都是一致的。辛伐他汀相对于辛伐他汀的增量成本效益(以 1998 年意大利里拉(L)计算)为每增加一年生命的成本为 4000 万至 6.5 亿里拉(或 3356.97 万欧元)。辛伐他汀 0.2mg/天比普伐他汀 20mg/天更具成本效益,而辛伐他汀 0.4mg/天相对于普伐他汀 20mg/天的每增加一年生命的增量成本效益在 NHS 和社会视角下,在 35 至 39 岁、50 至 54 岁和 65 至 69 岁三个年龄组中分别为 1110 万至 3180 万里拉(或 5733 至 16423 欧元)。
本研究结果表明,在一级预防中,辛伐他汀的平均成本效益比与意大利市场上其他可用的药物干预措施相比具有优势。