A C Verhoeven, J C Bibo, M Boers, G L Engel, S van der Linden
{"title":"早期类风湿关节炎联合治疗的成本-效果和成本-效用:联合降压强的松龙、甲氨蝶呤和磺胺嘧啶与单独磺胺嘧啶的随机比较COBRA试验组。联合治疗Bij Reumatoïde关节炎。","authors":"A C Verhoeven, J C Bibo, M Boers, G L Engel, S van der Linden","doi":"10.1093/rheumatology/37.10.1102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazine group 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9307,"journal":{"name":"British journal of rheumatology","volume":"37 10","pages":"1102-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/rheumatology/37.10.1102","citationCount":"74","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone. COBRA Trial Group. Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis.\",\"authors\":\"A C Verhoeven, J C Bibo, M Boers, G L Engel, S van der Linden\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rheumatology/37.10.1102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazine group 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"37 10\",\"pages\":\"1102-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/rheumatology/37.10.1102\",\"citationCount\":\"74\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/37.10.1102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/37.10.1102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone. COBRA Trial Group. Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis.
Objective: Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone.
Methods: Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques.
Results: The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazine group 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment.
Conclusion: Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.