Gage B F, Cardinalli A B, Albers G W, Owens D K
Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, CA, USA.
JAMA. 1995 Dec 20;274(23):1839-45.
To examine the cost-effectiveness of prescribing warfarin sodium in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with or without additional stroke risk factors (a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, diabetes, hypertension, or heart disease).
Decision and cost-effectiveness analyses. The probabilities for stroke, hemorrhage, and death were obtained from published randomized controlled trials. The quality-of-life estimates were obtained by interviewing 74 patients with atrial fibrillation. Costs were estimated from literature review, phone survey, and Medicare reimbursement.
In the base case, the patients were 65 years of age and good candidates for warfarin therapy.
Treatment with warfarin, aspirin, or no therapy in the decision analytic model.
Quality-adjusted survival and marginal cost-effectiveness of warfarin as compared with aspirin or no therapy.
For patients with NVAF and additional risk factors for stroke, warfarin therapy led to a greater quality-adjusted survival and to cost savings. For patients with NVAF and one additional risk factor, warfarin therapy cost $8000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. For 65-year-old patients with NVAF alone, warfarin cost about $370,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, as compared with aspirin therapy. However, for 75-year-old patients with NVAF alone, prescribing warfarin cost $110,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. For patients who were not prescribed warfarin, aspirin was preferred to no therapy on the basis of both quality-adjusted survival and cost in all patients, regardless of the number of risk factors present.
Treatment with warfarin is cost-effective in patients with NVAF and one or more additional risk factors for stroke. In 65-year-old patients with NVAF but no other risk factors for stroke, prescribing warfarin instead of aspirin would affect quality-adjusted survival minimally but increase costs significantly.
研究在有或无额外卒中风险因素(既往卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作、糖尿病、高血压或心脏病)的非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者中开具华法林钠处方的成本效益。
决策和成本效益分析。卒中、出血和死亡的概率来自已发表的随机对照试验。生活质量评估通过对74例心房颤动患者进行访谈获得。成本通过文献综述、电话调查和医疗保险报销估算。
在基础病例中,患者年龄为65岁,是华法林治疗的合适人选。
在决策分析模型中采用华法林、阿司匹林治疗或不治疗。
与阿司匹林或不治疗相比,华法林的质量调整生存期和边际成本效益。
对于有NVAF和额外卒中风险因素的患者,华法林治疗可带来更高的质量调整生存期并节省成本。对于有NVAF和一个额外风险因素的患者,华法林治疗每挽救一个质量调整生命年的成本为8000美元。对于仅患有NVAF的65岁患者,与阿司匹林治疗相比,华法林每挽救一个质量调整生命年的成本约为370,000美元。然而,对于仅患有NVAF的75岁患者,开具华法林每挽救一个质量调整生命年的成本为110,000美元。对于未开具华法林的患者,无论存在的风险因素数量如何,基于所有患者的质量调整生存期和成本,阿司匹林优于不治疗。
对于有NVAF和一个或多个额外卒中风险因素的患者,华法林治疗具有成本效益。在没有其他卒中风险因素的65岁NVAF患者中,开具华法林而非阿司匹林对质量调整生存期的影响最小,但会显著增加成本。