Rabeneck L, Laine L
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Tex.
Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(23):2705-10. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1994.00420230096011.
Currently no consensus exists concerning the timing of upper endoscopy and the choice of antifungal therapy for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus who also have esophageal candidiasis. The objective of this research was to determine the clinical and economic effects of alternative management strategies for these patients.
Decision analysis was used to evaluate the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of two strategies for the diagnostic workup and treatment of patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus with dysphagia and/or odynophagia: (1) empiric--a strategy to treat all patients empirically with an oral antifungal agent for up to 4 weeks; and (2) initial esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)--a strategy to perform EGD on all patients and to treat only those with esophageal candidiasis with an oral antifungal agent for up to 4 weeks. Within each strategy, three antifungal regimens were evaluated: ketoconazole, 200 mg daily; fluconazole, 100 mg daily; and ketoconazole, 200 mg daily, for 2 weeks followed by fluconazole, 200 mg daily, for 2 weeks in nonresponders. Information on the probability of esophageal candidiasis in patients with esophageal symptoms and the efficacy of antifungal therapy was obtained from the literature. The costs for diagnostic workup were estimated using both teaching hospital charges and Medicare reimbursement payments. The costs of antifungal therapy were estimated from local pharmacy charges. The average cost per complete response and incremental cost-effectiveness were calculated and subjected to sensitivity analysis.
Using the best available evidence for antifungal efficacy, empiric fluconazole was the most cost-effective strategy for all probabilities of esophageal candidiasis that were more than 0.55. Using teaching hospital charges in our base-case analysis, the average costs per complete response for empiric fluconazole and initial EGD and fluconazole were $2706 and $3141, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness of initial EGD and fluconazole compared with empiric fluconazole was $3792 per additional complete response. When the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies was compared as the cost of diagnostic workup was varied, initial EGD and fluconazole became the dominant strategy when the diagnostic workup cost fell below $710, a figure that is less than the current Medicare reimbursement payment.
From the perspective of the payer of medical care, empiric fluconazole is the most cost-effective strategy for the initial management of patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus with esophageal symptoms.
目前,对于感染人类免疫缺陷病毒且患有食管念珠菌病的患者,上消化道内镜检查的时机以及抗真菌治疗方案的选择尚无共识。本研究的目的是确定这些患者不同管理策略的临床和经济效果。
采用决策分析来评估两种针对有吞咽困难和/或吞咽痛的人类免疫缺陷病毒感染患者的诊断检查和治疗策略的结果、成本及成本效益:(1)经验性治疗——对所有患者经验性使用口服抗真菌药物治疗长达4周的策略;(2)初始食管胃十二指肠镜检查(EGD)——对所有患者进行EGD检查,仅对患有食管念珠菌病的患者使用口服抗真菌药物治疗长达4周的策略。在每种策略中,评估了三种抗真菌治疗方案:酮康唑,每日200毫克;氟康唑,每日100毫克;以及酮康唑,每日200毫克,治疗2周,无反应者随后改为氟康唑,每日200毫克,治疗2周。关于有食管症状患者食管念珠菌病的概率及抗真菌治疗疗效的信息来自文献。诊断检查的成本使用教学医院收费和医疗保险报销费用进行估算。抗真菌治疗的成本根据当地药房收费估算。计算了每个完全缓解的平均成本和增量成本效益,并进行了敏感性分析。
根据抗真菌疗效的最佳现有证据,对于食管念珠菌病所有概率大于0.55的情况,经验性使用氟康唑是最具成本效益的策略。在我们的基础病例分析中使用教学医院收费,经验性使用氟康唑以及初始EGD和氟康唑治疗每个完全缓解的平均成本分别为2706美元和3141美元。与经验性使用氟康唑相比,初始EGD和氟康唑治疗每增加一个完全缓解的增量成本效益为3792美元。当诊断检查成本变化时比较两种策略的成本效益,当初始诊断检查成本低于710美元(该数字低于当前医疗保险报销费用)时,初始EGD和氟康唑治疗成为主导策略。
从医疗保健支付者的角度来看,经验性使用氟康唑是对有食管症状的人类免疫缺陷病毒感染患者进行初始管理的最具成本效益的策略。