| 头孢哌酮钠及其复方酶制剂治疗医院获得性肺炎的成本-效果分析 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 傅铁军,张玉方,刘峰,白容,王霆,李苌清.头孢哌酮钠及其复方酶制剂治疗医院获得性肺炎的成本-效果分析[J].中国药房,2012(36):3389-3391. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 傅铁军 张玉方 刘峰 白容 王霆 李苌清 |
| |
| 作者单位： | [1]重庆市红十字会医院呼吸内科,重庆400020 [2]重庆市红十字会医院药剂科临床药学室,重庆400020 [3]湘北威尔曼制药股份有限公司,长沙410331 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家“十二五”重大新药创制科技重大专项（2011ZX09201-101-03和201lZX09401-301-4）;重庆市卫生局医学科学技术研究项目（2010-2-398） |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的:评价头孢哌酮钠与头孢哌酮钠/舒巴坦钠治疗医院获得性肺炎的成本-效果。方法:将医院获得性肺炎患者160例随机均分为A、B组,分别给予头孢哌酮钠(A组)和头孢哌酮钠/舒巴坦钠(B组)治疗,统计2组成本-效果,并进行分析和评价。结果:A、B组临床痊愈率分别为70.0%和75.0%(P>0.05),总有效率分别为85.0%和92.5%(P>0.05),不良反应发生率分别为6.2%和7.5%(P>0.05),差异均无统计学意义;以临床总有效率计,成本效果比分别为55.08、59.30元,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:头孢哌酮钠治疗医院获得性肺炎的疗效与头孢哌酮钠/舒巴坦钠相似,而前者更具成本-效果优势。
|
| 关 键 词： | 头孢哌酮钠 头孢哌酮钠/舒巴坦钠 成本-效果分析 |
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Cefoperazone versus Compound Enzyme Inhibitor in the Treatment of Hospi- tal Acquired Pneumonia |
| |
| FU Tie-jun,BAI RongDept. of Respiratory,Chongqing Red Cross Hospital,Chongqing,China ZHANG Yu-fang,LIU Feng,LI Chang-qing.Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Cefoperazone versus Compound Enzyme Inhibitor in the Treatment of Hospi- tal Acquired Pneumonia[J].China Pharmacy,2012(36):3389-3391. |
| |
| Authors: | FU Tie-jun BAI RongDept of Respiratory Chongqing Red Cross Hospital Chongqing China ZHANG Yu-fang LIU Feng LI Chang-qing |
| |
| Institution: | FU Tie-jun, BAI Rong(Dept. of Respiratory, Chongqing Red Cross Hospital, Chongqing 400020, China) ZHANG Yu-fang, LIU Feng, L1 Chang-qing(Dept. of Clinical Pharmacy, Chongqing Red Cross Hospital, Chongqing 400020, China) WANG Ting(Xiangbei Welman Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Changsha 410331, China) |
| |
| Abstract: | OBJECTIVE： To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam in the treat- ment of hospital acquired pneumonia. METHODS： 160 patients with hospital acquired pneumonia were randomly divided into 2 groups and given cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam respectively. The cost of each case was calculated, analyzed and evaluated by using pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS： Cure rate of 2 groups were 70.0% and 75.0% （P〉0.05）, while total effective rate were 85.0% and 92.5% （P〉0.05）, respectively. The incidence of adverse drug reactions were 6,2% and 7.5% （P〉0.05）. The cost-effectiveness （C/E） were 55.08 yuan and 59.30 yuan （P〈0.05）. CONCLUSION： There is no statistical significance in the difference of cefoperazone sodium vs. cefoperazone sulbactam in the treatment of hospital acquired nneumonia, and cefonerazone sodium shows cost-effectiveness advantage because of low cost. |
| |
| Keywords: | Cefoperazone sodium Cefoperazone sulbactam Cost-effectiveness analysis |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 维普 等数据库收录！ |
|
