請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6084
標題: | 健保放寬紅血球生成素給付條件對初次腹膜透析患者心血管事件之影響 The Impact on Cardiovascular Risk of Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Patients After Loosening the Erythropoietin Payment Criteria |
作者: | I-chun Lai 賴怡君 |
指導教授: | 張睿詒 |
關鍵字: | 紅血球生成素,健保給付,心血管風險, erythropoietin,payment criteria,cardiovascular risk, |
出版年 : | 2013 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 透析患者需要投與紅血球生成素,以維持適當血比容。國內為鼓勵腹膜透析,將紅血球生成素給付規範之血比容限制放寬,原先血比容超過30%不予給付,在民國95年11月1日將血比容上限放寬至36%,超過36%方不予給付;唯每個月紅血球生成素的使用劑量仍限制在20,000單位(Eprex、Recormon)或100mcg (Aranesp)以下。國內腹膜透析患者之血比容在放寬前約為28-29%,或許因紅血球生成素給付劑量的限制,在血比容給付上限放寬後,亦僅上升至30-31%。
關於血比容的目標值,近年來幾個大型試驗如Normal Hematocrit Study (Besarb A, et al. 1998)、CHOIR Study (Singh AK, et al. 2006)與TREAT Study (Pfeffer MA, et al. 2010)結果顯示,血比容過高(>37%)會伴隨較多的心血管事件。美國FDA於2011年6月建議透析患者血比容維持在30-33%。換言之,低血比容(30-33%)較高血比容(>37%)為安全。然國內腹膜透析患者之血比容在給付條件放寬前僅28-29%,過於偏低,在放寬後方增至30-31%。放寬後維持血比容在30-31%,是否較放寬前維持在28-29%為安全,即是否可減少之心血管事件風險,有賴國人資料加以分析。 本研究為利用「全民健康保險資料庫」,比較健保紅血球生成素給付條件放寬前後,對腹膜透析患者心血管事件風險之影響。紅血球生成素放寬的健保給付規範於95年11月1日施行,故以95年11月1日為切點,於放寬前(Time 1)與放寬後(Time 2)分別篩選出初次腹膜透析患者,追蹤心血管事件(包括心肌梗塞、中風、因心衰竭住院、死亡)發生率。本研究採取兩種方式定義初次腹膜透析患者,寬鬆法與嚴謹法。寬鬆法不限定開始透析的第一至三個月的透析模式,僅限定開始透析的第四個月須為腹膜透析。嚴謹法除開始透析的第四個月須為腹膜透析外,尚須有連續三個月為腹膜透析。 研究結果顯示,以寬鬆法所得Time 1有1759人,Time 2有2981人;嚴謹法Time 1有1733人,Time 2有2940人。Time 2有較多高血壓與糖尿病之患者。紅血球生成素每個月使用劑量之中位數,在Time 2為13,105U,Time 1為10,769U,兩者差異達統計上顯著(p<0.0001)。以寬鬆法所得之Time 1與Time 2初次腹膜透析患者,經校正年齡、性別、Charlson index、糖尿病、高血壓、冠狀動脈繞道手術病史、心衰竭病史等變項後,針對心血管事件綜合指標以Cox proportional hazard model分析,Time 2相對於Time 1之hazard ratio為0.823,95% 信賴區間為0.711,0.954,達統計上顯著降低(p=0.0096)。就個別心血管事件,包括「心肌梗塞」、「中風」、「因心衰竭住院」、「死亡」,則Time 2相對於Time 1之hazard ratio均小於1,唯未達統計上顯著。以嚴謹法所得之結果與寬鬆法相同。進一步檢視各次族群結果,發現無糖尿病的族群,Time 1與Time 2心血管事件無顯著差異。而糖尿病族群在Time 2相對於Time 1心血管事件綜合指標風險明顯降低(hazard ratio 0.737, 95%信賴區間0.613,0.886,p=0.0011);就個別心血管事件,「中風」在Time 2相對於Time 1風險達顯著降低(hazard ratio 0.591, 95%信賴區間0.396,0.883,p=0.0102),「因心衰竭住院」在Time 2相對於Time 1風險較低,差異接近統計上顯著(hazard ratio 0.785, 95%信賴區間0.614,1.004,p=0.0535)。以嚴謹法所得之結果與寬鬆法相同。 本研究結果可支持在限定紅血球生成素最高使用劑量下,將血比容維持在30-31%較28-29%為安全,可降低心血管事件風險。對於是否需將健保給付規範中血比容上限調降,則有待進一步討論。此外,是否紅血球生成素最高劑量限制,對於糖尿病患者更有利,則有待後續試驗加以驗證。 Background: Erythropoietins are necessary for dialysis patients to maintain adequate hematocrit(Hct). In order to promote peritoneal dialysis, the erythropoietin payment criteria loosened in Nov 2006. Before Nov 2006, erythropoietin was not covered by National Health Insurance (NHI) if the Hct was above 30%. After Nov 2006, the erythropoietin payment criteria loosen and erythropoietin can be covered by NHI if the Hct is below 36%. However, the maximum monthly erythropoietin dosage remains the same (Eprex/Recormon 20,000U, Aranesp 100mcg). After widening the benefit package, the Hct of prevalent peritoneal dialysis patients increased from 28-29% to 30-31%. From the results of Normal Hematocrit study, CHOIR study and TREAT study, we find that administration of erythropoietins and pushing Hct to more than 37% is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcome. However, what is the optimal Hct target is still an issue of debate. We need local data to find out if it is better to maintain Hct between 30-31% rather than 28-29%. Objective: The main purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of loosening erythropoietin payment criteria on cardiovascular outcome of incident peritoneal dialysis patients. Methods: We selected incident peritoneal dialysis patients from the NHI beneficiaries claim data from 2003 to 2010. We defined the period before loosening the erythropoietin payment criteria as Time 1 (from May 2003 to Oct 2006), the period after loosening the payment criteria as Time 2 (from May 2007 to Oct 2010). Incident peritoneal dialysis patients were followed for cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization due to heart failure and death. Findings: There are 1759 incident peritoneal dialysis patients in Time 1 and 2981 patients in Time 2. More patients in Time 2 have hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM). The median monthly erythropoietin dosage is significantly higher in Time 2 (Time 1: 10,769U; Time 2: 13,105U). For the composite cardiovascular endpoint, the risk in Time 2 is significantly lower (HR 0.823, 95% confidence interval 0.711, 0.954, p=0.0096) after adjusting age, sex, Charlson index, DM, hypertension, history of coronary artery bypass graft and congestive heart failure. For each cardiovascular endpoint, the risk reduction in Time 2 does not reach statistical significance. With regard to subgroup analysis, for patients without DM, no significant difference in cardiovascular risk is observed between Time 1 and Time 2. However, for patients with DM, the risk of composite cardiovascular endpoint is significantly lower in Time 2 (HR 0.737, 95% confidence interval 0.613, 0.886, p=0.0011). In addition, the risk of stroke is also significantly lower in Time 2 (HR 0.591, 95% confidence interval 0.396, 0.883, p=0.0102). The risk of hospitalization due to heart failure is lower in Time 2, but does not reach statistical significance (HR 0.785, 95% confidence interval 0.614, 1.004, p=0.0535). The above data can support that under maximum monthly erythropoietin dose limit, less cardiovascular risk is observed when Hct is maintained within 30-31% compared to 28-29%. However, it needs further discussion to see if refine the erythropoietin payment criteria is necessary. Current payment criteria can leave more room for clinical practice. Besides, further studies are needed to prove that whether DM patients can have less cardiovascular events with Hct 30-31% under maximum monthly erythropoietin dose limit |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6084 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 健康政策與管理研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf | 822.87 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。