Suppr超能文献

从意大利国家卫生体系角度比较培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺单片复方制剂与自由等效复方制剂治疗高血压患者的成本效果分析。

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-pill combination of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide to the free equivalent combination in patients with hypertension from an Italian national health system perspective.

机构信息

Université Paris-Dauphine, Université PSL, LEDA, [LEGOS], Paris, France.

Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Putnam, Kraków, Poland.

出版信息

Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2024 Oct;24(8):967-975. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2024.2365988. Epub 2024 Jun 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide versus its free equivalent combination (FEC) in adults with hypertension in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and an Italian healthcare payer's perspective. In the model, the additional effect of the SPC on blood pressure level compared with the FEC was translated into a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and CKD, which was modeled via Framingham risk algorithms. Difference in persistence rates of SPC and FEC were modeled via discontinuation rates.

RESULTS

A perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is associated with lower cost and better health outcomes compared to its FEC. Over a lifetime horizon, it is associated with a 0.050 QALY gain and cost savings of €376, resulting from lower cardiovascular event rates. In the alternative scenario, where different approach for modeling impact of adherence was considered, incremental gain of 0.069 QALY and savings of €1,004 were observed. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses, indicating that use of this SPC is a cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is a cost-saving treatment option for hypertension in Italy, compared to its FEC.

摘要

目的

评估培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺单片复方制剂(SPC)与自由等效复方制剂(FEC)相比,在意大利高血压成人患者中的成本效益。

方法

开发了一个马尔可夫模型,以进行具有终生时间范围和意大利医疗保健支付者观点的成本效用分析。在该模型中,SPC 对血压水平的额外效果与 FEC 相比,转化为心血管事件和 CKD 的风险降低,通过弗雷明汉风险算法进行建模。SPC 和 FEC 的持久性差异通过停药率进行建模。

结果

与培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺 FEC 相比,培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺 SPC 具有更低的成本和更好的健康结果。在终生时间范围内,它与 0.050 QALY 的获益和 376 欧元的成本节约相关,这归因于心血管事件率的降低。在替代方案中,考虑了不同的模型用于建模依从性的影响,观察到 0.069 QALY 的增量获益和 1004 欧元的节省。结果对敏感性和情景分析具有稳健性,表明使用这种 SPC 是一种具有成本效益的策略。

结论

研究结果表明,与培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺 FEC 相比,培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺 SPC 是意大利高血压治疗的一种节省成本的治疗选择。

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