Wang Miao, Moran Andrew E, Liu Jing, Coxson Pamela G, Heidenreich Paul A, Gu Dongfeng, He Jiang, Goldman Lee, Zhao Dong
Department of Epidemiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing, China.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jan;7(1):78-85. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000674. Epub 2014 Jan 14.
The cost-effectiveness of the optimal use of hospital-based acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatments and their potential impact on coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in China is not well known.
The effectiveness and costs of optimal use of hospital-based AMI treatments were estimated by the CHD Policy Model-China, a Markov-style computer simulation model. Changes in simulated AMI, CHD mortality, quality-adjusted life years, and total healthcare costs were the outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to assess projected cost-effectiveness. Optimal use of 4 oral drugs (aspirin, β-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in all eligible patients with AMI or unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was a highly cost-effective strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios approximately US $3100 or less). Optimal use of reperfusion therapies in eligible patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was moderately cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ≤$10,700). Optimal use of clopidogrel for all eligible patients with AMI or primary percutaneous coronary intervention among high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in tertiary hospitals alone was less cost effective. Use of all the selected hospital-based AMI treatment strategies together would be cost-effective and reduce the total CHD mortality rate in China by ≈9.6%.
Optimal use of most standard hospital-based AMI treatment strategies, especially combined strategies, would be cost effective in China. However, because so many AMI deaths occur outside of the hospital in China, the overall impact on preventing CHD deaths was projected to be modest.
在中国,基于医院的急性心肌梗死(AMI)治疗的最佳使用的成本效益及其对冠心病(CHD)死亡率的潜在影响尚不清楚。
通过冠心病政策模型-中国(一种马尔可夫式计算机模拟模型)估计基于医院的AMI治疗的最佳使用的有效性和成本。模拟的AMI、CHD死亡率、质量调整生命年和总医疗费用的变化为结果。增量成本效益比用于评估预计的成本效益。在所有符合条件的AMI患者中最佳使用4种口服药物(阿司匹林、β受体阻滞剂、他汀类药物和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂)或在非ST段抬高型心肌梗死中使用普通肝素是一种高成本效益的策略(增量成本效益比约为3100美元或更低)。在符合条件的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者中最佳使用再灌注治疗具有中等成本效益(增量成本效益比≤10700美元)。仅在三级医院中,对所有符合条件的AMI患者或非ST段抬高型心肌梗死高危患者进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗时最佳使用氯吡格雷的成本效益较低。一起使用所有选定的基于医院的AMI治疗策略将具有成本效益,并使中国的CHD总死亡率降低约9.6%。
在中国,最佳使用大多数标准的基于医院的AMI治疗策略,尤其是联合策略,将具有成本效益。然而,由于在中国有许多AMI死亡发生在医院外,预计对预防CHD死亡的总体影响将是适度的。