Suppr超能文献

比较现状高血压护理与作为分开药丸或单片复方制剂的双重联合疗法的扩大规模情况:24个低收入和中等收入国家的经济评估。

Comparing scale up of status quo hypertension care against dual combination therapy as separate pills or single pill combinations: an economic evaluation in 24 low- and middle-income countries.

作者信息

Hutchinson Brian, Husain Muhammad Jami, Nugent Rachel, Kostova Deliana

机构信息

Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases, International Development Group, RTI International - 3040 East Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.

Division of Global Health Protection, Global Health Center, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton RD NE MS H21-7, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.

出版信息

EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Aug 27;75:102778. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102778. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

International hypertension treatment guidelines recommend initiating pharmacological treatment with combination therapy and using fixed dose single pill combinations (SPCs) to improve adherence. However, few countries have adopted combination therapy as a form of first-line treatment and SPC uptake in low- and middle-income countries is low due in part to cost and availability. Evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness is needed as health authorities consider incorporating new recommendations into national clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

Over a 30-year time horizon, we used an Excel-based Markov cohort state-transition model to assess the financial costs (screening, treatment, program, and supply chain costs) and socio-economic outcomes (health outcomes, value of lives saved, productivity losses averted) of three antihypertensive treatment scenarios. A baseline scenario scaled treatment among adults age 30 plus while assuming continuation of the widespread practice of initiating treatment with monotherapy. Scenarios one and two scaled treatment while initiating patients on two antihypertensive medications, either as separate pills or as a SPC. Analysis inputs are informed by country-specific data, meta-analyses of the blood-pressure lowering of antihypertensive medications, and own-studies of medication costs. We compared costs, cost-effectiveness, and net-benefits across scenarios, and assessed uncertainty in a one-way sensitivity analysis.

FINDINGS

Using dual combination therapy (with or without SPCs) as first-line treatment would increase costs relative to current practices that largely use monotherapy. Required additional annual resources averaged as much as 3.6, 0.9, and 0.2 percent of government health expenditures in the analysis' low-, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries. However, across 24 countries, over the next 30 years, combination therapy with separate pills could save 430,000 more lives and combination therapy with SPCs could save 564,000 more lives compared to baseline treatment practices. Administration of two or more medications using SPCs generated higher net benefits in most countries (16/24) compared to the baseline scenario.

INTERPRETATION

First line treatment employing SPCs is likely to generate higher net benefits compared to status quo treatment practices in countries with relatively higher incomes. To improve population health, national health systems would benefit from reducing structural and other barriers to the use of combination therapy and SPCs.

FUNDING

This journal article was supported by TEPHINET cooperative agreement number 1NU2HGH000044-01-0 funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

摘要

背景

国际高血压治疗指南建议采用联合治疗启动药物治疗,并使用固定剂量单片复方制剂(SPC)以提高依从性。然而,很少有国家将联合治疗作为一线治疗方式,而且中低收入国家的SPC使用率较低,部分原因是成本和可及性问题。随着卫生当局考虑将新建议纳入国家临床实践指南,需要有关成本和成本效益的证据。

方法

在30年的时间范围内,我们使用基于Excel的马尔可夫队列状态转换模型来评估三种抗高血压治疗方案的财务成本(筛查、治疗、项目和供应链成本)和社会经济结果(健康结果、挽救生命的价值、避免的生产力损失)。一个基线方案对30岁及以上成年人的治疗进行了规模调整,同时假设继续广泛采用单药起始治疗的做法。方案一和方案二在扩大治疗规模的同时,让患者起始使用两种抗高血压药物,要么是分开的药片,要么是SPC。分析输入数据来自特定国家的数据、抗高血压药物降压效果的荟萃分析以及我们自己对药物成本的研究。我们比较了各方案的成本、成本效益和净效益,并在单向敏感性分析中评估了不确定性。

结果

与目前主要使用单药治疗的做法相比,使用双重联合治疗(无论是否使用SPC)作为一线治疗会增加成本。在分析中的低收入、中低收入和中高收入国家,所需的额外年度资源平均分别高达政府卫生支出的3.6%、0.9%和0.2%。然而,在24个国家中,在未来30年里,与基线治疗做法相比,分开药片的联合治疗可多挽救430,000条生命,SPC联合治疗可多挽救564,000条生命。在大多数国家(16/24),与基线方案相比,使用SPC给予两种或更多药物产生了更高的净效益。

解读

在收入相对较高的国家,与现状治疗做法相比,采用SPC的一线治疗可能会产生更高的净效益。为改善人群健康,国家卫生系统将受益于减少联合治疗和SPC使用方面的结构性及其他障碍。

资助

本期刊文章由美国疾病控制与预防中心资助的TEPHINET合作协议编号1NU2HGH000044-01-0支持。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d533/11400602/406d54d6eef8/gr1.jpg

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