Suppr超能文献

慢性心力衰竭家庭管理与门诊管理的成本效益:一项实用多中心随机试验队列的延长随访——“WHICH?”研究(哪种心力衰竭干预措施在减少住院治疗方面最具成本效益且对消费者最友好)

Cost-effectiveness of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: Extended follow-up of a pragmatic, multicentre randomized trial cohort - The WHICH? study (Which Heart Failure Intervention Is Most Cost-Effective & Consumer Friendly in Reducing Hospital Care).

作者信息

Maru Shoko, Byrnes Joshua, Carrington Melinda J, Chan Yih-Kai, Thompson David R, Stewart Simon, Scuffham Paul A

机构信息

Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Population & Social Health Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Australia.

Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Population & Social Health Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Australia.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2015 Dec 15;201:368-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.08.066. Epub 2015 Aug 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of two multidisciplinary management programs for elderly patients hospitalized with chronic heart failure (CHF) and how it is influenced by patient characteristics.

METHODS

A trial-based analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of 280 elderly patients with CHF discharged to home from three Australian tertiary hospitals. Two interventions were compared: home-based intervention (HBI) that involved home visiting with community-based care versus specialized clinic-based intervention (CBI). Bootstrapped incremental cost-utility ratios were computed based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total healthcare costs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). We performed multiple linear regression to explore which patient characteristics may impact patient-level NMB.

RESULTS

During median follow-up of 3.2 years, HBI was associated with slightly higher QALYs (+0.26 years per person; p=0.078) and lower total healthcare costs (AU$ -13,100 per person; p=0.025) mainly driven by significantly reduced duration of all-cause hospital stay (-10 days; p=0.006). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$ 50,000 per additional QALY, the probability of HBI being better-valued was 96% and the incremental NMB of HBI was AU$ 24,342 (discounted, 5%). The variables associated with increased NMB were HBI (vs. CBI), lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, no hyponatremia, fewer months of HF, fewer prior HF admissions <1 year and a higher patient's self-care confidence. HBI's net benefit further increased in those with fewer comorbidities, a lower self-care confidence or no hyponatremia.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CBI, HBI is likely to be cost-effective in elderly CHF patients with significant comorbidity.

摘要

目的

评估两种多学科管理方案对因慢性心力衰竭(CHF)住院的老年患者的长期成本效益,以及患者特征如何影响该效益。

方法

在一项针对280名从澳大利亚三家三级医院出院回家的老年CHF患者的随机对照试验的同时进行了基于试验的分析。比较了两种干预措施:基于家庭的干预(HBI),包括家访和社区护理,以及基于专科诊所的干预(CBI)。根据质量调整生命年(QALY)和总医疗费用计算自抽样的增量成本效用比。基于增量净货币效益(NMB)构建成本效益可接受性曲线。我们进行了多元线性回归,以探索哪些患者特征可能影响患者层面的NMB。

结果

在3.2年的中位随访期内,HBI与略高的QALY(每人+0.26年;p=0.078)和较低的总医疗费用(每人-13,100澳元;p=0.025)相关,这主要是由于全因住院时间显著缩短(-10天;p=0.006)。在每增加一个QALY支付意愿阈值为50,000澳元的情况下,HBI具有更高价值的概率为96%,HBI的增量NMB为24,342澳元(贴现率为5%)。与NMB增加相关的变量包括HBI(与CBI相比)、较低的查尔森合并症指数、无低钠血症、HF病程较短、过去1年内较少的HF住院次数以及患者较高的自我护理信心。在合并症较少、自我护理信心较低或无低钠血症的患者中,HBI的净效益进一步增加。

结论

与CBI相比,HBI在合并症严重的老年CHF患者中可能具有成本效益。

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