中国全科医学
中國全科醫學
중국전과의학
CHINESE GENERAL PRACTICE
2010年
10期
1124-1126
,共3页
严小惠%姚苏宁%周菊芝%朱燕文%何佳%兰雄力%刘文虎
嚴小惠%姚囌寧%週菊芝%硃燕文%何佳%蘭雄力%劉文虎
엄소혜%요소저%주국지%주연문%하가%란웅력%류문호
高血压病%最小成本分析%复方制剂
高血壓病%最小成本分析%複方製劑
고혈압병%최소성본분석%복방제제
Hypertension%Cost-minimization analysis%Compound preparation
目的 评价3种社区常用复方降压制剂治疗高血压病的成本-效果.方法 采用随机对照试验方法,对纳入社区管理的高血压病患者216例应用3种复方降压制剂进行为期1年的治疗,并进行经济学分析.3种不同复方制剂为:复方卡托普利(A组,70例)、珍菊降压片(B组,72例)、复方利血平氨苯蝶啶片(C组,74例).结果 A、B、C 3组药物总成本分别为178.7元、281.1元和365.0元;对高血压降压的总有效率分别为88.6%、88.9%和91.9%,3组临床疗效比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);成本-效果比分别为2.0、3.2和4.0;B、C组对于A组对降压的增量成本比为341.3元、56.5元.结论 3种复方制剂疗效均较好,从成本-效果比分析A组更符合药物经济学原则.
目的 評價3種社區常用複方降壓製劑治療高血壓病的成本-效果.方法 採用隨機對照試驗方法,對納入社區管理的高血壓病患者216例應用3種複方降壓製劑進行為期1年的治療,併進行經濟學分析.3種不同複方製劑為:複方卡託普利(A組,70例)、珍菊降壓片(B組,72例)、複方利血平氨苯蝶啶片(C組,74例).結果 A、B、C 3組藥物總成本分彆為178.7元、281.1元和365.0元;對高血壓降壓的總有效率分彆為88.6%、88.9%和91.9%,3組臨床療效比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05);成本-效果比分彆為2.0、3.2和4.0;B、C組對于A組對降壓的增量成本比為341.3元、56.5元.結論 3種複方製劑療效均較好,從成本-效果比分析A組更符閤藥物經濟學原則.
목적 평개3충사구상용복방강압제제치료고혈압병적성본-효과.방법 채용수궤대조시험방법,대납입사구관리적고혈압병환자216례응용3충복방강압제제진행위기1년적치료,병진행경제학분석.3충불동복방제제위:복방잡탁보리(A조,70례)、진국강압편(B조,72례)、복방리혈평안분접정편(C조,74례).결과 A、B、C 3조약물총성본분별위178.7원、281.1원화365.0원;대고혈압강압적총유효솔분별위88.6%、88.9%화91.9%,3조림상료효비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05);성본-효과비분별위2.0、3.2화4.0;B、C조대우A조대강압적증량성본비위341.3원、56.5원.결론 3충복방제제료효균교호,종성본-효과비분석A조경부합약물경제학원칙.
Objective To assess the cost and effect of 3 compound hypotensors that have been commonly used in community.Methods The randomized and controlled trials were conducted among 216 patients with hypertension treated with respectively 3 compound hypotensors for one year,and the economic analysis was performed.The patients were divided into 3 groups,group A (n=70) administered with Compound Catopril tablets,group B (n=72) with Zhenju Hypotensive tablets and group C (n=74) with Compound Hypotensive tablets.Results The total costs for group A,B and C were RMB 178.7,281.1 and 365.0,respectively.The total effective rates were 88.6%,88.9%,and 91.9% respectively.No significant difference was found in clinical effects among the 3 groups (P>0.05).The cost-effectiveness ratios were 2.0,3.2,and 4.0 respectively.The △C/△E of B and C when compared to A were RMB 341.3 and 56.5 respectively.Conclusion The effects of these 3 regimens are all good.Group A accords with the pharmacoeconomics best.