两种治疗格雷夫斯病方法的经济学分析  

Economics Analysis on Two Treatment Methods of Graves Disease

作　　者：赵晓宏[1] 陈灿[1] 李明杰[1] 

机构地区：[1]西安交通大学附属三二O一医院内分泌科,陕西汉中723000

出　　处：《医学综述》2014年第8期1503-1504,1509,共3页Medical Recapitulate

摘　　要：目的比较放射性131I和口服药物治疗格雷夫斯病的经济学效果。方法收集2011年10-12月在西安交通大学附属三二○一医院内分泌科就诊的格雷夫斯病患者220例,其中自愿进入临床路径行131I治疗的114例患者为131I治疗组,口服药物甲巯咪唑的106例患者为口服药治疗组。治疗半年后,比较两组患者的疗效以及半年来的直接治疗费用。结果131I治疗组和口服药治疗组的总有效率分别为99.1%和98.1%,其治疗效果比较差异无统计学意义（z=0.42,t=-1.29,P〉0.05）;两组的治疗费用比较也无统计学意义（t=-1.29,P=0.20）,但口服药治疗组患者的不良反应率显著高于131I治疗组（χ2=53.93,P=0.00）。结论两种治疗方法的疗效相似,但131I治疗要比口服药物治疗更经济、简单、方便,不良反应少,且患者易于接受,其可作为成年格雷夫斯病治疗的首选方案。Objective To investigate the economics effect of radioactive 131I and oral medicine in treatment of Graves disease. Methods Total of 220 cases of Graves disease were collected in Department of En docrinology Medicine, Affiliated 3201 Hospital of Xi＇an Jiaotong University during October to December of 2011, including 114 cases（ 131I group ） treated by 131 land 106 cases（ oral treatment group ） treated by oral medicine（ homemade methimazole） for half a year. The curative effect and direct treatment cost of the two groups for half a year were compared. Results There was no statistical difference in the curative effect and treatment charges between group A and group B （ H = 0.42, t = - 1.29, P 〉 0.05）, but the adverse reaction rate of oral treatment group was significantly higher than 131I group （ x2 = 53.93, P = 0.00 ）. Conclusion The two treatment methods had similar curative effect, but the method of radioactive 131I is more economical, easy and convenient with less adverse reactions than oral medicine method. 131I can be used as the optimal treatment choice for Graves disease.

关 键 词：格雷夫斯病 经济学分析 131I 甲巯咪唑 

分 类 号：R581.1[医药卫生—内分泌]