首页> 外文期刊>British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology >Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of a clinical medication review focused on personal goals in older persons with polypharmacy compared to usual care: Economic evaluation of the DREAMeR study
【24h】

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of a clinical medication review focused on personal goals in older persons with polypharmacy compared to usual care: Economic evaluation of the DREAMeR study

机译:临床药物治疗的成本实用性和成本效益分析,重点是与通常的护理相比,对老年人的个人目标:梦想家学习的经济评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Aims The ageing society may lead to increasing healthcare expenditure. A clinical medication review (CMR) could potentially reduce costs. The aim of this study is to perform a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective of a patient-centred CMR. Methods A trial-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as part of the DREAMeR study, a pragmatic controlled trial that randomised patients aged >= 70 years using at least seven drugs to either CMR or usual care. Over six months, healthcare consumption and drug use were collected to estimate costs, and effects were collected in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured with EQ-5D-5 L and EQ-VAS and as reduced health-related complaints with impact on patients' daily lives. Results The total mean costs per patient (n= 588) over six months were euro4,189 +/- 6,596 for the control group (n= 294) and euro4,008 +/- 6,678 for the intervention group (n= 294), including estimated intervention costs of euro199 +/- 67, which resulted in a mean incremental total cost savings of euro181 for the intervention group compared to the control group. Compared to the control group, for the intervention group, the mean incremental QALYs over six months were: -0.00217 measured with EQ-5D and 0.003 measured with EQ-VAS. The incremental effect of reduced health-related complaints with impact was -0.34. There was a likelihood of >90% that the intervention was cost-saving. Conclusions The benefits of a patient-centred CMR were inconsistent with no benefits on HR-QoL measured with EQ-5D-5 L and small benefits on HR-QoL measured with EQ-VAS and health-related complaints with impact on patients' daily lives. Additionally, a CMR could potentially be cost saving from a societal perspective.
机译:目的老龄化社会可能导致医疗支出增加。临床药物评估(CMR)可能会降低成本。本研究的目的是从以患者为中心的CMR的社会角度进行成本效用和成本效益分析。方法作为DREAMeR研究的一部分,进行基于试验的成本-效用和成本-效果分析。DREAMeR研究是一项实用主义对照试验,将年龄大于等于70岁的患者随机分为至少七种药物进行CMR或常规治疗。在六个月的时间里,收集医疗消费和药物使用情况,以估算成本,并根据EQ-5D-5L和EQ-VAS测量的质量调整生命年(QALY)以及减少对患者日常生活产生影响的健康相关投诉收集影响。结果六个月内,对照组(n=294)和干预组(n=294)的每名患者的总平均成本(n=588)分别为4189欧元+/-6596欧元和4008欧元+/-6678欧元,包括199欧元+/-67欧元的估计干预成本,这导致干预组与对照组相比,平均增量总成本节约181欧元。与对照组相比,干预组在六个月内的QALY平均增量为:-0.00217(用EQ-5D测量)和0.003(用EQ-VAS测量)。减少健康相关投诉的增量效应为-0.34。干预措施节省成本的可能性大于90%。结论以患者为中心的CMR的益处与EQ-5D-5L测量的HR QoL无益处、EQ-VAS测量的HR QoL小益处以及影响患者日常生活的健康相关投诉不一致。此外,从社会角度来看,CMR可能会节约成本。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
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