摘要
目的:评价头孢甲肟注射液与头孢哌酮注射液治疗急性细菌性感染的成本-效果。方法:将各种急性细菌感染的患者133例,随机分为两组,分别给予头孢甲肟注射液和头孢哌酮注射液治疗,运用药物经济学的最小成本分析法和成本-效果分析法计算每例治疗成本,并进行分析和评价。结果:头孢甲肟和头孢哌酮两组临床痊愈率分别为76．56%和71．01%,总有效率分别为96．9%和91．3%,不良反应发生率均为5．6%,治愈每例患者所需药品的最小费用分别为(6742±2248)元和(1314±438)元;以临床总有效率计C/E分别为(62．46±19．12)和(19．97±4．85)元;ΔC/ΔE为755元。结论:两组临床疗效相近,而费用有显著性差异,头孢甲肟注射液组药品费用高于头孢哌酮注射液组,后者更具成本-效果优势。
Objectives： To evaluate the economic benefit of cefmenoxime hydrochloride injection versus cefoperazone injection for treatment of bacterial infections. Methods： 133 patients with bacterial infections were randomly divided into cefmenoxime hydrochloride group or cefoperazone group. Those patients were evaluated by pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. Results： Cure rate of two groups were 76.56% and 71.01% ,while efficacy rate were 96.9% and 91.3% ,respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions were 5.6% in two groups. Minimum cost of the drugs are （6742 ±2 248） and （1 314 ± 438） RMB yuan; The cost-effectiveness （C/E） are （62.46 ± 19.12 ） and （ 19.97 ± 4. 85 ） RMB yuan ; A C/AE is 755 RMB yuan. Conclusions：Two groups have same efflcacy,but the cost of cefmenoxime hydrochloride regimen was higher than cefoperazone. So according to least cost and cost-effectiveness analysis, cefoperazone injection is a better costeffect drug.
出处
《中国新药杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2006年第10期830-832,共3页
Chinese Journal of New Drugs
关键词
头孢甲肟
头孢哌酮
细菌感染
药物经济学
成本-效果分析
cefmenoxime
cefoperazone
bacterial infections
pharmacoeconomics
cost-effective-ness analysis
