...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Internal Medicine >A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Combination Antiplatelet Therapy for High-Risk Acute Coronary Syndromes: Clopidogrel plus Aspirin versus Aspirin Alone
【24h】

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Combination Antiplatelet Therapy for High-Risk Acute Coronary Syndromes: Clopidogrel plus Aspirin versus Aspirin Alone

机译:高风险急性冠脉综合征联合抗血小板治疗的成本-效果分析:氯吡格雷加阿司匹林与单独使用阿司匹林

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Although clopidogrel plus aspirin is more effective than aspirin alone in preventing subsequent vascular events in patients with unstable angina, the cost-effectiveness of this combination has yet to be examined in this high-risk population. nnObjective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone. nnDesign: Cost–utility analysis. nnData Sources: Published literature. nnTarget Population: Patients with unstable angina and electrocardiographic changes or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. nnTime Horizon: Lifetime. nnPerspective: Societal. nnInterventions: Combination therapy with clopidogrel, 75 mg/d, plus aspirin, 325 mg/d, for 1 year, followed by aspirin monotherapy, was compared with lifelong aspirin therapy, 325 mg/d. nnOutcome Measures: Lifetime costs, life expectancy in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. nnResults of Base-Case Analysis: Patients treated with aspirin alone lived 9.51 QALYs after their initial event and incurred expenses of $127 700; the addition of clopidogrel increased life expectancy to 9.61 QALYs and costs to $129 300. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone was $15 400 per QALY. nnResults of Sensitivity Analyses: The analysis of 1 year of therapy was robust to all sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, fewer than 3% of simulations resulted in cost-effectiveness ratios over $50 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of longer combination therapy depends critically on the balance of thrombotic event rates, durable efficacy, and the increased bleeding rate in patients taking clopidogrel. nnLimitations: This analysis may not apply to patients with severe heart failure, those undergoing long-term anticoagulant therapy, those recently managed with revascularization, or those undergoing short-term treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. nnConclusions: In patients with high-risk acute coronary syndromes, 1 year of therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin results in greater life expectancy than aspirin alone, at a cost within the traditional limits of cost-effectiveness. The durable efficacy of clopidogrel relative to the risk for hemorrhage should be further explored before more protracted therapy can be recommended.
机译:背景:尽管氯吡格雷加阿司匹林比单独使用阿司匹林在预防不稳定型心绞痛患者随后发生的血管事件方面更有效,但在这一高风险人群中,这种组合的成本效益尚待检验。目标:确定氯吡格雷加阿司匹林与单独使用阿司匹林相比的成本效益。 nnDesign:成本-效用分析。 nn数据来源:已发表的文献。 nn目标人群:不稳定型心绞痛和心电图改变或非Q波心肌梗死的患者。 nnTime Horizo​​n:生命周期。 nnPerspective:社会。 nn干预措施:将75 mg / d的氯吡格雷联合325 mg / d的阿司匹林联合治疗1年,然后进行阿司匹林单药治疗与325 mg / d的终生阿司匹林联合治疗。 nn结果度量:生命周期成本,按质量调整的生命年(QALYs)的预期寿命,以及增量成本效益比。基本病例分析的结果:单独使用阿司匹林治疗的患者在发生首次事件后生活了9.51个QALY,发生费用为127-700美元;氯吡格雷的平均预期寿命为9.61个QALY,费用为129-300美元,与单独使用阿司匹林相比,氯吡格雷加阿司匹林的成本效益比为15-400美元。 nn敏感性分析的结果:治疗1年的分析对所有敏感性分析都非常可靠。在概率敏感性分析中,少于3%的模拟结果导致每个QALY的成本效益比超过$ 50 000。更长的联合疗法的成本效益主要取决于血栓事件发生率,持久疗效和服用氯吡格雷的患者出血率上升之间的平衡。 nn局限性:该分析可能不适用于患有严重心力衰竭的患者,接受长期抗凝治疗的患者,近期接受血管重建术治疗的患者或接受糖蛋白IIb / IIIa抑制剂短期治疗的患者。 nn结论:在高危急性冠脉综合征患者中,氯吡格雷加阿司匹林治疗1年比单用阿司匹林可获得更长的预期寿命,且费用在传统的成本效益范围内。在建议更长期的治疗之前,应进一步探讨氯吡格雷相对于出血风险的持久疗效。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Annals of Internal Medicine》 |2005年第4期|p.251-259|共9页
  • 作者单位

    From Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island;

    and Stanford University Medical Center and VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California.;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号