Mejía Aurelio, Richardson Gerry, Pattenden Jill, Cockayne Sarah, Lewin Robert
School of Medicine and Health Economics Group, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Sep;51(9):1214-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.01.009. Epub 2014 Jan 24.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of a nurse facilitated, cognitive behavioural self-management programme for patients with heart failure compared with usual care including the un-facilitated access to the same manual, from the perspective of the NHS.
Data were obtained from a pragmatic, multi-centre, randomized controlled 'open' trial conducted in seven centres in the UK between 2006 and 2008. Effectiveness was estimated as Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Resource use was measured prospectively on all patients using information provided by patients in postal questionnaires, case-note review, electronic record review and interviews with patients. Unit costs were obtained from the literature and applied to the relevant resource use to estimate total costs. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.
There were no substantial differences in the utility scores between treatment groups in all follow-up assessments, in the use of medication or outpatient visits and both groups report a similar frequency of contact with health care professionals. After controlling for baseline utility and using imputed dataset, treatment was associated with a reduction in QALY of 0.004 and a additional cost of £69.49. The probability that the intervention is cost-effective for thresholds between £20,000 and £30,000 is around 45%.
There is little evidence that the addition of the intervention had any effect on costs or outcomes. The uncertainty around both estimates of cost and effectiveness mean that it is not reasonable to make recommendations based on cost-effectiveness alone.
从英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)的角度,评估由护士协助的认知行为自我管理项目对于心力衰竭患者的成本效益,与常规护理(包括无协助地获取相同手册)进行比较。
数据来自于2006年至2008年在英国七个中心进行的一项实用、多中心、随机对照“开放”试验。有效性以质量调整生命年(QALY)进行评估。资源使用情况通过患者在邮政问卷、病历审查、电子记录审查以及与患者访谈中提供的信息,对所有患者进行前瞻性测量。单位成本从文献中获取,并应用于相关资源使用情况以估算总成本。采用多重填补法处理缺失数据。
在所有随访评估中,治疗组之间的效用得分、药物使用或门诊就诊情况均无显著差异,且两组报告与医疗保健专业人员接触的频率相似。在控制基线效用并使用填补数据集后,治疗与QALY降低0.004以及额外成本69.49英镑相关。对于20,000英镑至30,000英镑的阈值,干预措施具有成本效益的概率约为45%。
几乎没有证据表明增加该干预措施对成本或结果有任何影响。成本和有效性估计的不确定性意味着仅基于成本效益做出推荐是不合理的。