Suppr超能文献

瑞典初级卫生保健中降脂治疗的成本效益。细胞研究小组。

The cost effectiveness of lipid lowering in Swedish primary health care. The CELL Study Group.

作者信息

Johannesson M, Borgquist L, Jönsson B, Lindholm L H

机构信息

Central for Health Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden.

出版信息

J Intern Med. 1996 Jul;240(1):23-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.1996.491830000.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two types of advice (usual and intensive) to lower cardiovascular risk, with or without pharmacological medication aimed at lowering cholesterol levels.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study of 18 months' duration.

SETTING

Thirty-two primary health care centres in Sweden.

SUBJECTS

A total of 384 males, aged 30-59 years, with at least one cardiovascular risk factor in addition to moderate primary hyperlipidaemia; of these, 355 completed the 18-month follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS

Intensive advice consisted of group sessions led by a health care professional; the usual level of advice was given at follow-up visits. The pharmacological intervention consisted of pravastatin. The goal was to achieve a 15% reduction in cholesterol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per life-year gained based on the change in serum cholesterol and the net intervention cost of the four treatment options.

RESULTS

The usual level of advice and intensive advice in combination with pharmacological treatment achieved no incremental effects and were not considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The cost per life-year gained of pharmacological treatment compared with intensive advice decreased. The cost per life-year gained of pharmacological treatment compared with no treatment was about $61,000, if no adverse consequences on noncardiovascular mortality were assumed.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of the CELL trial, intensive advice is not a cost-effective strategy compared with lipid-lowering drug treatment. However, it is also doubtful whether drug treatment as primary prevention is cost-effective compared with no treatment in the studied patient population.

摘要

目的

评估两种类型的建议(常规建议和强化建议)在降低心血管疾病风险方面的成本效益,无论是否使用旨在降低胆固醇水平的药物治疗。

设计

为期18个月的前瞻性、随机、对照临床研究。

地点

瑞典的32个初级卫生保健中心。

研究对象

共有384名年龄在30 - 59岁之间的男性,除中度原发性高脂血症外,至少还有一种心血管疾病风险因素;其中355名完成了18个月的随访。

干预措施

强化建议由一名医疗保健专业人员主持小组会议;常规建议在随访时提供。药物干预包括普伐他汀。目标是使胆固醇降低15%。

主要观察指标

基于血清胆固醇变化和四种治疗方案的净干预成本计算每获得一个生命年的成本。

结果

常规建议以及强化建议与药物治疗相结合未产生增量效果,因此未纳入成本效益分析。与强化建议相比,药物治疗每获得一个生命年的成本有所降低。如果假设对非心血管疾病死亡率没有不良影响,与不治疗相比,药物治疗每获得一个生命年的成本约为61,000美元。

结论

根据CELL试验的结果,与降脂药物治疗相比,强化建议不是一种具有成本效益的策略。然而,在研究的患者群体中,作为一级预防的药物治疗与不治疗相比是否具有成本效益也值得怀疑。

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