三种干预措施治疗腹腔内感染的药物经济学评价  

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of 3 kinds of treatment for intra-abdominal infections

作　　者：朱玲[1,2] 童荣生[1,2] 龙恩武[2] 

机构地区：[1]泸州医学院,四川泸州646000 [2]四川省医学科学院 四川省人民医院药学部,成都610072

出　　处：《实用药物与临床》2014年第11期1402-1405,共4页Practical Pharmacy and Clinical Remedies

基　　金："十二五"国家科技支撑计划课题(2013BAI06B04)

摘　　要：目的比较单用美罗培南、亚胺培南/西司他丁和头孢噻肟与甲硝唑联合治疗腹腔内感染的成本—效果比。方法建立美罗培南、亚胺培南/西司他丁和头孢噻肟与甲硝唑联合治疗腹腔内感染的决策树模型,对三种治疗方案的成本与效果进行分析,对成本假设进行一维度敏感性分析。结果决策树成本—效果分析美罗培南治疗腹腔内感染的成本—效果比为8 942.37元,增量成本—效果比为-387 066.92元;亚胺培南/西司他丁的成本—效果比为4 227.77元,增量成本—效果比为-109 511.09元;头孢噻肟与甲硝唑联合的成本—效果比为2 929.74元,增量成本—效果比为0元。成本在敏感度分析的范围内如何变化,均不会对结果产生影响。结论三种治疗方案治疗腹腔内感染,在不考虑病原菌敏感性的情况下,头孢噻肟与甲硝唑联合的增量成本—效果比大于美罗培南和亚胺培南/西司他丁,为优势方案,具有更大的经济学效益。Objective To evaluate the pharmacoeconomic effects of 3 therapeutic regiments for intra-abdomi-nal infections using the cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods Decision tree was built to analyze the cost-effectiveness of meropenem,imipenem/cilastatin or cefotaxime plus metronidazole on intra-abdominal infections. One-way sensitivity analysis was carried out. Results The results of cost-effectiveness showed that the CER of patients receiving meropen-em was 8 942. 37 yuan, and ICER was -387 066. 92 yuan;the CER of patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin was 4 227. 77 yuan,and ICER was -109 511. 09 yuan;and the CER of patients receiving cefotaxime plus metronidazole was 2 929. 74 yuan,and ICER was 0 yuan. The result would not change if the cost was in the range of sensitivity analy-sis. Conclusion For the treatment of intra-abdominal infections,not considering the pathogen susceptibility,cefotaxime plus metronidazole is more economic than meropenem and imipenem/cilastatin.

关 键 词：成本-效果 腹腔内感染 美罗培南 亚胺培南/西司他丁 头孢噻肟 甲硝唑 

分 类 号：R656[医药卫生—外科学]