The American journal of managed care · 2011
Identifying favorable-value cardiovascular health services.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Braithwaite R Scott, Mentor Sherry M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To identify cardiovascular health services with a high level of evidence to suggest that they deliver favorable value.
STUDY DESIGN: Evidence synthesis using the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry.
METHODS: We queried the registry to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular health services in the United States. In addition to searching the registry, we performed supplementary searches of published literature for cost-effectiveness studies of cardiovascular interventions that were endorsed by guidelines of national medical and scientific societies. We defined favorable value as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100,000 or less per quality-adjusted life-year.
RESULTS: Our initial review of cardiovascular health services in the United States revealed 174 separate peer-reviewed studies. Of those, 157 studies did not meet our inclusion criteria, leaving 17 studies for further evaluation that covered the following services with potentially high value: statins to prevent myocardial infarction (for primary and secondary prevention), screening for and treatment of high blood pressure (diuretics or beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the case of diabetes) to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke, warfarin sodium and low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent pulmonary emboli, implantable cardiac defibrillators for patients at high risk of sudden death, antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and clopidogrel bisulfate) to prevent future myocardial infarction, beta-blockers for patients who have had myocardial infarction, warfarin to prevent future stroke in persons with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and percutaneous procedures to relieve claudication symptoms.
CONCLUSION: We describe a new way of synthesizing cost-effectiveness evidence for use by consumers, payers, and other decision makers.
STUDY DESIGN: Evidence synthesis using the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry.
METHODS: We queried the registry to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular health services in the United States. In addition to searching the registry, we performed supplementary searches of published literature for cost-effectiveness studies of cardiovascular interventions that were endorsed by guidelines of national medical and scientific societies. We defined favorable value as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100,000 or less per quality-adjusted life-year.
RESULTS: Our initial review of cardiovascular health services in the United States revealed 174 separate peer-reviewed studies. Of those, 157 studies did not meet our inclusion criteria, leaving 17 studies for further evaluation that covered the following services with potentially high value: statins to prevent myocardial infarction (for primary and secondary prevention), screening for and treatment of high blood pressure (diuretics or beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the case of diabetes) to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke, warfarin sodium and low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent pulmonary emboli, implantable cardiac defibrillators for patients at high risk of sudden death, antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and clopidogrel bisulfate) to prevent future myocardial infarction, beta-blockers for patients who have had myocardial infarction, warfarin to prevent future stroke in persons with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and percutaneous procedures to relieve claudication symptoms.
CONCLUSION: We describe a new way of synthesizing cost-effectiveness evidence for use by consumers, payers, and other decision makers.