论文部分内容阅读
目的 通过对高脂血症患者常规与强化非药物干预的成本效果分析 ,从卫生经济学方面探讨经济有效的降脂方法。方法 采用学校为基础的随机对照研究 ,常规组 16 0人 ,强化组 16 2人。强化组给予根据“血脂异常防治建议”制定的系统的非药物干预 ;常规组不给予主动干预。两组的成本均采用直接费用代替。干预效果采用血脂下降程度评价。结果 强化组各血脂指标成本效果比均优于常规组 ;组内比较 :强化组甘油三酯成本效果比最低(170 ) ,常规组同样为甘油三酯成本效果比最低 (5 2 5 ) ;增量分析 :总胆固醇增量成本效果比最低为 6 3。以失访率和血脂下降为不确定因素作敏感性分析 ,结果有一定差异 ,但主要效果和成本效果比对经济学评价无明显影响。结论 6个月系统非药物干预的经济效果优于常规非药物干预。
Objective To analyze the cost-effectiveness of conventional and intensive non-drug interventions in patients with hyperlipidemia and to explore a cost-effective lipid-lowering method from the aspect of health economics. Methods A school-based randomized controlled study was performed on 160 normal subjects and 16 2 intensive subjects. The intensive group was given systematic non-drug interventions based on the Recommendations on Prevention and Treatment of Dyslipidemias; the conventional group was not given active intervention. The costs of both groups are replaced by direct costs. The effect of intervention was evaluated by the degree of decline of blood lipids. Results Compared with the conventional group, the cost-effectiveness of each lipid index in the intensive group was better than that in the conventional group. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the intensive group was lower than that of the conventional group (170), while the cost-effectiveness ratio of the same group was also the lowest (525) Volume analysis: total cholesterol cost-effective than the minimum 6 3. Sensitivity analysis of uncertainty rate and declining blood lipids as a result of uncertainty, the results have some differences, but the main effect and cost-effectiveness than the economic evaluation had no significant effect. Conclusion The economic effect of systemic non-drug intervention at 6 months is better than that of conventional non-drug intervention.