摘要
目的:评价强骨胶囊(QC)治疗原发性骨质疏松症(POP)的经济性,以期为卫生医疗用药资源的合理配置提供参考依据。方法:采用Treeage Pro软件对QC vs阿法骨化醇胶囊(AC)干预POP进行成本效果分析,成本参数源于米内网数据库和相关文献,同时根据Meta分析得出的临床疗效评价2种治疗方案短期内的经济性,模型模拟的干预时间为6个月。通过单因素敏感性分析、概率敏感性分析对本研究结果的稳健性进行验证。结果:基础分析结果显示,两组的ICER值为2867.26元,即相比于AC,使用QC每多治疗1例有效的POP患者需多花费2867.26元,当患者的个人意愿支付价格高于2867.26元时,QC组具有经济性的概率优于AC组。敏感性分析结果验证了基础分析结果的稳健性,QC组的临床疗效、药品单价和患者用药的依从性对研究结果有一定影响,当患者的个人意愿支付价格高于2750元时,具有更高经济性概率的干预方案同基础分析结果一致。结论:当个人意愿支付价格高于2750元时,POP患者选用QC比AC在改善疼痛及骨密度方面更具有经济性。
Objective: Evaluate the economy of Qianggu Capsule(QC) in the treatment of primary osteoporosis(POP), so as to provide a referencefor the rational allocation of medical medication resources. Methods: In this study, Treeage Pro software was used to analyze the cost-ef fectiveness of QC vs Alfacalcidol Capsule(AC)intervention POP. The cost parameters were obtained from the Menet database and related literature. At the same time, the short-term economy of the two treatment schemes was evaluated according to the clinical efficacy obtained by a Meta-analysis, and the intervention time simulated by the model was 6 months. The robustness of the results of this study was verified by singlefactor sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: The results of basic analysis showed that the ICER of the two groups was 2867.26 yuan. That is,compared with AC, it would cost 2867.26 yuan more to treat one more ef fective POP patient with QC. When the patient’s personal willingness to pay price was higher than 2867.26 yuan, the probability of economic efficiency in QC group was better than that in AC group. The results of sensitivity analysis verified the robustness of the results of basic analysis. The clinical efficacy, drug unit price and patient medication compliance of the QC group had a certain impact on the results of the study. When the patients were willing to pay a price of more than 2750yuan, the intervention plan with higher economic probability was consistent with the results of the basic analysis.Conclusion: When the price of individual willingness to pay is higher than 2750 yuan, QC is more economical than AC in improving pain and bone mineral density for POP patients.
作者
崔鑫
韩晟
李薇
孙春全
陈明
石丰豪
谢雁鸣
魏戌
Cui Xin;Han Sheng;Li Wei;Sun Chunquan;Chen Ming;Shi Fenghao;Xie Yanming;Wei Xu(Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine,China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences,Beijing 100700,China;International Research Center for Medicinal Administration,Peking University,Beijing 100191,China;Yuquan Hospital of Tsinghua University,Beijing 100049,China;Wangjing Hospital,China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences,Beijing 100102,China)
出处
《中国药事》
CAS
2023年第3期250-256,共7页
Chinese Pharmaceutical Affairs
基金
国家重点研发计划项目(编号18YFC1707400)。
关键词
强骨胶囊
药物经济学评价
骨质疏松
成本-效果分析
决策树模型
Qianggu Capsule
pharmacoeconomic evaluation
osteoporosis
cost-effectiveness analysis
decision tree model
