Yap Celene Y L, Hsueh Ya-Seng Arthur, Knott Jonathan C, Taylor David McD, Chan Esther W, Kong David C M
Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Jun;2(2):141-151. doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0047-y.
The combination of midazolam and droperidol has proven superior to droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy in the management of acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs).
This is the first economic analysis to evaluate the cost-benefit and cost effectiveness of the midazolam-droperidol combination compared with droperidol or olanzapine for the management of acute agitation in EDs.
This analysis used data derived from a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial conducted in two metropolitan Australian EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. The economic evaluation was from the perspective of Australian public hospital EDs. The main outcomes included agitation management time and the agitation-free time gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
The midazolam-droperidol combination was the least costly regimen (Australian dollars [AU$]46.25 per patient) compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups (AU$92.18 and AU$110.45 per patient, respectively). The main cost driver for all groups was the cost of the labour required during the initial adequate sedation. The combination afforded an additional 10-13 min of mean agitation-free time gained, which can be translated to additional savings of AU$31.24-42.60 per patient compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups. The benefit-cost ratio for the midazolam-droperidol combination was 12.2:1.0, or AU$122,000 in total benefit for every AU$10,000 spent on management of acute agitation. Sensitivity analyses over key variables indicated these results were robust.
The midazolam-droperidol combination may be a cost-saving and dominant cost-effective regimen for the treatment of acute agitation in EDs as it is more effective and less costly than either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy.
在急诊科急性躁动管理中,咪达唑仑与氟哌利多联合使用已被证明优于氟哌利多或奥氮平单药治疗。
这是首次进行的经济分析,旨在评估与氟哌利多或奥氮平相比,咪达唑仑 - 氟哌利多联合用药在急诊科急性躁动管理中的成本效益和成本效果。
本分析使用的数据来自2014年10月至2015年8月在澳大利亚两个大城市急诊科进行的一项随机、对照、双盲临床试验。经济评估是从澳大利亚公立医院急诊科的角度进行的。主要结局包括躁动管理时间和获得的无躁动时间。进行了敏感性分析。
与氟哌利多组和奥氮平组(分别为每位患者92.18澳元和110.45澳元)相比,咪达唑仑 - 氟哌利多联合用药是成本最低的治疗方案(每位患者46.25澳元)。所有组的主要成本驱动因素是初始充分镇静期间所需的劳动力成本。与氟哌利多组和奥氮平组相比,联合用药平均可多获得10 - 13分钟的无躁动时间,这意味着每位患者可额外节省31.24 - 42.60澳元。咪达唑仑 - 氟哌利多联合用药的效益成本比为12.2:1.0,即在急性躁动管理上每花费10,000澳元可获得总计122,000澳元的总效益。对关键变量的敏感性分析表明这些结果是可靠的。
咪达唑仑 - 氟哌利多联合用药可能是急诊科治疗急性躁动的一种节省成本且具有显著成本效益的治疗方案,因为它比氟哌利多或奥氮平单药治疗更有效且成本更低。