从意大利国家卫生系统的角度,比较高血压患者服用培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺单药组合与免费等效组合的成本效益分析。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Pierre Levy, Tobiasz Lemański, Catriona Crossan, Anna Lefebvre, Jean-Baptiste Brière, Luca Degli Esposti, Zeba M Khan
{"title":"从意大利国家卫生系统的角度,比较高血压患者服用培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺单药组合与免费等效组合的成本效益分析。","authors":"Pierre Levy, Tobiasz Lemański, Catriona Crossan, Anna Lefebvre, Jean-Baptiste Brière, Luca Degli Esposti, Zeba M Khan","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2365988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide versus its free equivalent combination (FEC) in adults with hypertension in Italy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and an Italian healthcare payer's perspective. In the model, the additional effect of the SPC on blood pressure level compared with the FEC was translated into a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and CKD, which was modeled via Framingham risk algorithms. Difference in persistence rates of SPC and FEC were modeled via discontinuation rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is associated with lower cost and better health outcomes compared to its FEC. Over a lifetime horizon, it is associated with a 0.050 QALY gain and cost savings of €376, resulting from lower cardiovascular event rates. In the alternative scenario, where different approach for modeling impact of adherence was considered, incremental gain of 0.069 QALY and savings of €1,004 were observed. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses, indicating that use of this SPC is a cost-effective strategy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is a cost-saving treatment option for hypertension in Italy, compared to its FEC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-pill combination of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide to the free equivalent combination in patients with hypertension from an Italian national health system perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Pierre Levy, Tobiasz Lemański, Catriona Crossan, Anna Lefebvre, Jean-Baptiste Brière, Luca Degli Esposti, Zeba M Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2024.2365988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide versus its free equivalent combination (FEC) in adults with hypertension in Italy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and an Italian healthcare payer's perspective. In the model, the additional effect of the SPC on blood pressure level compared with the FEC was translated into a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and CKD, which was modeled via Framingham risk algorithms. Difference in persistence rates of SPC and FEC were modeled via discontinuation rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is associated with lower cost and better health outcomes compared to its FEC. Over a lifetime horizon, it is associated with a 0.050 QALY gain and cost savings of €376, resulting from lower cardiovascular event rates. In the alternative scenario, where different approach for modeling impact of adherence was considered, incremental gain of 0.069 QALY and savings of €1,004 were observed. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses, indicating that use of this SPC is a cost-effective strategy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is a cost-saving treatment option for hypertension in Italy, compared to its FEC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2365988\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2365988","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估意大利成人高血压患者服用培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺单药组合(SPC)与免费等效组合(FEC)的成本效益:方法:我们建立了一个马尔可夫模型,从意大利医疗支付方的角度进行了终生成本效用分析。在该模型中,与 FEC 相比,SPC 对血压水平的额外影响被转化为心血管事件和慢性肾脏病风险的降低,并通过弗雷明汉风险算法进行建模。SPC 和 FEC 的持续率差异通过停药率来模拟:结果:培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺 SPC 与其 FEC 相比,成本更低,疗效更好。在整个生命周期内,由于心血管事件发生率较低,可获得 0.050 QALY 的收益,节省成本 376 欧元。在替代方案中,考虑了不同的方法来模拟依从性的影响,观察到增量收益为 0.069 QALY,节省成本为 1,004 欧元。结果对敏感性分析和情景分析都很可靠,表明使用这种 SPC 是一种具有成本效益的策略:研究结果表明,在意大利,培哚普利/氨氯地平/吲达帕胺 SPC 与其 FEC 相比,是一种节约成本的高血压治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-pill combination of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide to the free equivalent combination in patients with hypertension from an Italian national health system perspective.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide versus its free equivalent combination (FEC) in adults with hypertension in Italy.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and an Italian healthcare payer's perspective. In the model, the additional effect of the SPC on blood pressure level compared with the FEC was translated into a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and CKD, which was modeled via Framingham risk algorithms. Difference in persistence rates of SPC and FEC were modeled via discontinuation rates.

Results: A perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is associated with lower cost and better health outcomes compared to its FEC. Over a lifetime horizon, it is associated with a 0.050 QALY gain and cost savings of €376, resulting from lower cardiovascular event rates. In the alternative scenario, where different approach for modeling impact of adherence was considered, incremental gain of 0.069 QALY and savings of €1,004 were observed. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses, indicating that use of this SPC is a cost-effective strategy.

Conclusions: The findings indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is a cost-saving treatment option for hypertension in Italy, compared to its FEC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信