2004-2005年卫生部全国革兰阴性菌细菌耐药性监测

目的 建立全国性细菌耐药监测网,了解我国细菌耐药流行情况.方法 以标准平皿二倍稀释法测定抗菌药物最低抑菌浓度(MIC),并按国家临床实验室标准委员会2004年标准计算细菌敏感度与耐药率.结果 按照监测方案,收集2004年10月1日至2005年9月30日全国15座城市17家医院的4 075株临床分离致病菌,行MIC测定.其中革兰阴性菌3 150株,占77.3%.肠杆菌科细菌对碳青霉烯类抗生素保持较高敏感度,拉氧头孢、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦、头孢哌酮/舒巴坦和头孢吡肟等具有较好的抗菌活性,耐药率<10%.非发酵革兰阴性菌中铜绿假单胞菌和鲍曼不动杆菌对亚胺培南的耐药率分别为10.6%和10.4%,酶抑制剂复方制剂和氟喹诺酮类药物也有较强抗菌作用.结论 大肠埃希菌和鲍曼不动杆菌耐药率增长明显,喹诺酮及氨基糖苷类药物对肠杆菌科细菌抗菌作用并不高,应引起广泛关注.     

结核分枝杆菌及利福平耐药核酸扩增检测成本分析

目的 比较固体培养、比例法药敏和结核分枝杆菌及利福平耐药核酸扩增（Xpert Mtb/RIF）(简称“Xpert”)检测在中国基层实验室应用的检测成本。 方法 选取4个县（区）级结核病防治机构收集3次固体培养和Xpert检测成本数据,2个省参比实验室收集3次对硝基苯甲酸（PNB）菌群鉴定和比例法利福平药敏试验成本数据。采用要素法计算每种方法单位检测成本,计算每例患者不同检测方法的检测成本。在不同结核病患病率人群中,以固体培养试验为金标准,比较Xpert检测在不同检测效能下检出1例结核病患者的成本。在不同利福平耐药率的可疑人群中,以传统药敏试验为金标准,比较Xpert检测在不同检测效能下检出1例利福平耐药结核病患者的成本。调整Xpert检测设备和试剂价格后,分析Xpert检测的单位成本。 结果 固体培养、菌群鉴定、利福平药敏试验和Xpert检测的单位检测成本分别为47.87、46.73、82.86和118.62元。传统方法检测每例结核病患者所需成本（2份培养,1份传代,1份PNB鉴定试验）为172.57元。传统方法检测每例耐药结核病患者的平均成本（2份固体培养,1份传代,1份PNB鉴定及药敏试验）为208.84元。当Xpert检测结核病或利福平耐药特异度为85%时,如果检测敏感度大于70%,在结核病患病率或利福平耐药结核病患病率1%～70%的任何人群中,Xpert检出1例结核病或利福平耐药结核病患者的成本均低于传统方法。试剂价格变化对于检测成本的影响远远大于设备价格变化的影响。 结论Xpert检测是一种比传统方法更经济并快速的检测方法,适合在中国基层实验室推广。     

Costs and Outcomes of Extended-Release vs. Immediate-Release Clarithromycin for Lower Respiratory Tract Infections

We used decision-analysis modeling to compare costs and outcomes of clarithromycin extended-release (Biaxin XL, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois, USA) and clarithromycin immediate-release (Biaxin®) for outpatients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). More patients achieved clinical cure with extended-release (83.9%) versus immediate-release (72.8%); fewer discontinued due to adverse events. Total costs with extended-release were $32 (16%) less; incorporating greater adherence for extended-release (once-daily) therapy resulted in greater savings. Results indicate that clarithromycin extended-release is cost-saving compared with immediate-release for LRTI.     

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin in pregnant women with a prior history of venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE: Women with a history of prior venous thromboembolism have an increased risk for recurrence during pregnancy. Although thromboprophylaxis reduces this risk, recent evidence suggests that, in many cases, prophylaxis can be safely withheld because the estimated recurrence risk is very low. The balance of risks and benefits in women with different recurrence risks has not been examined. METHODS: We developed a Markov state transition decision analytic model to compare prophylactic low molecular weight heparin to expectant management for pregnant women with a single prior venous thromboembolism. A lifetime time horizon and societal perspective were assumed. Input data were obtained by literature review. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: For "low-risk" women with a prior venous thromboembolism associated with a transient risk factor and no known thrombophilic condition (recurrence risk 0.5%), expectant management was both more effective and less costly than prophylaxis. For "high-risk" women with prior idiopathic venous thromboembolism or known thrombophilic condition (recurrence risk 5.9%), prophylaxis was associated with a reasonable cost-effectiveness ratio (USD 38,700 per QALY) given a risk of bleeding complications <1.0% (base case 0.5%). CONCLUSION: For low-risk women with prior venous thromboembolism, expectant management during pregnancy leads to better outcomes than administration of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. For high-risk women, antepartum thromboprophylaxis is a cost-effective use of resources.