RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE:To compare the cost-effectiveness of cefazolin sodium pentahydrate versus cefazolin sodium in treat-ment of bacterial infection,and to provide reference for rational drug use in the clinic.METHODS:In retrospective study,207 bac-terial infection patients receiving cefazolin sodium pentahydrate or cefazolin sodium were selected from our hospital during Nov. 2014 to Dec. 2015,including 109 cases in cefazolin sodium pentahydrate group and 98 cases in cefazolin sodium group. Both groups received relevant medicine 2 g,bid,ivgtt,within 7 d. The clinical efficacies,bacteriological efficacies and safety of 2 groups were compared,and pharmacoeconomics of 2 therapy plans were evaluated.RESULTS:The clinical response rates of cefazo-lin sodium pentahydrate group and cefazolin sodium group were 89.91% and 74.49%,with statistical significance(P<0.05);bac-terial clearance rates were 76.32% and 72.13%,with no statistical significance(P>0.05). No drug-related ADR occurred in 2 groups during the treatment. Total shot-term(7 d)cost of cefazolin sodium pentahydrate group and cefazolin sodium group respec-tively were 4 391.43 yuan and 3 396.19 yuan. Using clinical response rate as effect index,cost-effectiveness ratio of them were 48.84 and 45.59,and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 64.55,which was lower than per capita GDP of Hengshui city. The sensitivity analysis results were in agreement with the cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Under the current economic sit-uation of Hengshui city,cefazolin sodium pentahydrate has cost-effectiveness advantage in the treatment of bacterial infection than cefazolin sodium.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE:To compare the cost-effectiveness of cefazolin sodium pentahydrate versus cefazolin sodium in treat-ment of bacterial infection,and to provide reference for rational drug use in the clinic.METHODS:In retrospective study,207 bac-terial infection patients receiving cefazolin sodium pentahydrate or cefazolin sodium were selected from our hospital during Nov. 2014 to Dec. 2015,including 109 cases in cefazolin sodium pentahydrate group and 98 cases in cefazolin sodium group. Both groups received relevant medicine 2 g,bid,ivgtt,within 7 d. The clinical efficacies,bacteriological efficacies and safety of 2 groups were compared,and pharmacoeconomics of 2 therapy plans were evaluated.RESULTS:The clinical response rates of cefazo-lin sodium pentahydrate group and cefazolin sodium group were 89.91% and 74.49%,with statistical significance(P<0.05);bac-terial clearance rates were 76.32% and 72.13%,with no statistical significance(P>0.05). No drug-related ADR occurred in 2 groups during the treatment. Total shot-term(7 d)cost of cefazolin sodium pentahydrate group and cefazolin sodium group respec-tively were 4 391.43 yuan and 3 396.19 yuan. Using clinical response rate as effect index,cost-effectiveness ratio of them were 48.84 and 45.59,and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 64.55,which was lower than per capita GDP of Hengshui city. The sensitivity analysis results were in agreement with the cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Under the current economic sit-uation of Hengshui city,cefazolin sodium pentahydrate has cost-effectiveness advantage in the treatment of bacterial infection than cefazolin sodium.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the economical efficiency of alogliptin for type 2 diabetes and provide clinical evi-dence for related researches. METHODS:Retrieved from Cochrane Library,Pubmed,EMBase,CNKI,VIP,Wanfang,CBM database up from the start of the database to Mar.,2014,RCTs about alogliptin combined with traditional antidiabetic agents regimen vs. traditional antidiabetic agents regimen in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. Based on the sec-ondary analysis method of literatures,Effectiveness indexes and treatment course were extracted from the literatures,from the perspective of patients,and daily treatment cost was used to calculate the cost;cost-effectiveness analysis was adopted to evalu-ate the economical efficiency of alogliptin combined with traditional antidiabetic agents regimen vs. traditional antidiabetic agents regimen. RESULTS and CONCLUSIONS:6 literatures which met inclusion criteria were included. When alogliptin com-bined with metformin treatment lasted for 12 weeks,the decrease value of HbA1c as effect index showed poor cost-effective-ness;when treatment course increased to 26 weeks,the rate of qualified HbA1c as effect index showed poor cost-effectiveness. When the price of alogliptin decreased by 10% or the effects of trial group was the upper limit of 95%CI,the cost-effective-ness was superior to metformin regimen group. 12 weeks of alogliptin combined with pioglitazone treatment showed better cost-effectiveness than pioglitazone alone using the decrease value of HbA1c as effect;when treatment course increased to 26 weeks,the treatment showed poor cost-effectiveness;when treatment conrse increased to 26 weeks,using the rate of qualified HbA1c as effect indes,the results of sensitirity analysis showed that cost-effectiveness of trial group was better than that of pio-glitazone alone group as the apper limit of 95% CI. When alogliptin combined voglibose treatment lasted for 12 weeks,the de-crease value of HbA1c as effect index showed superior cost-effectiveness to voglibose regimen group. It is suggested to develop alogliptin pharmacoeconomics research based on RCTs and pharmacoeconomics research about improving diabetes patients’ long-term living quality.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the economic effects of different doses of methylprednisolone treatment regimes on traumatic reaction in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy after anterior decompressive operation.METHODS:56cervical spondylotic myelopathy cases who have been subjected to anterior decompressive operation were chosen to be the sub-jects.The56cases were divided into3groups and treated with different dosage of methylprednisolone,the initial dose for group A(18cases,low dose group)was80mg;the initial dose for group B(21cases,medium dose group)was600mg and that for group C(17cases,large dose group)was1000mg,the improvement of clinical symptom of each group was observed re-spectively and the cost-effectivenesses of the three groups were compared.RESULTS:The costs of the A,B,C groups were990.00,1339.10and1886.70yuan respectively;the effectiveness rates(E)of the A,B,C groups were5.56%,14.29%and35.29%respectively;The costs for each unit of obvious effectiveness(C/E)of the A,B,C groups were178.06,93.71and53.46yuan respectively;On the basis of group A,the needed costs of group B and C were39.99and30.16yuan respectively for each obvious effectiveness unit increase(?C/?E).CONCLUSION:Compared with group A and B,the effectiveness rates of group C had a bigger increase while the needed cost for each unit of obvious effectiveness was the lowest,therefore,the dose regimen of group C is more rational.