CAJ | 학술논문

本文意图比较左旋氨氯地平与氨氯地平两者的成本效果差异。采用两个多中心的头对头临床随机对照试验，结合药品的治疗费用进行回顾性的成本效果分析。结果：治疗4-8周后，左旋氨氯地平组110例治疗有效率为84.91%。氨氯地平组107例治疗有效率为77.45%，两组间没有统计学的显著差异。氨氯地平组每降低1mmHg的收缩压和舒张压的成本比左旋氨氯地平高出约一倍。6个月的治疗结果，无论是临床测定血压或是24小时动态血压的变化，每降低1mmHg临床收缩压或舒张压的平均药费两组成本相差1.62-1.79倍。左旋氨氯地平组的不良反应率（4.6%）明显低于氨氯地平组（10.3%）。结论：国产左旋氨氯地平与原研药氨氯地平相比更具有成本效果。
본문의도비교좌선안록지평여안록지평량자적성본효과차이。채용량개다중심적두대두림상수궤대조시험，결합약품적치료비용진행회고성적성본효과분석。결과：치료4-8주후，좌선안록지평조110례치료유효솔위84.91%。안록지평조107례치료유효솔위77.45%，량조간몰유통계학적현저차이。안록지평조매강저1mmHg적수축압화서장압적성본비좌선안록지평고출약일배。6개월적치료결과，무론시림상측정혈압혹시24소시동태혈압적변화，매강저1mmHg림상수축압혹서장압적평균약비량조성본상차1.62-1.79배。좌선안록지평조적불량반응솔（4.6%）명현저우안록지평조（10.3%）。결론：국산좌선안록지평여원연약안록지평상비경구유성본효과。
This paper aimed to compare the difference in cost-effectiveness between S-Amlodipine and racemic amlodipine .The two head-to-head multi-center randomized control studies as well as their price in the treatment were used. RESULTS:After 4-8 weeks treatment, there was no statistical significant difference observed in efficacy rate between S-Amlodipine group (110cases) and racemic Norvasc group (107 cases) (84.91%vs. 77.45%). The cost of Norvasc was 100%higher than that of S-Amlodipine. For the results of 6-month treatment, no matter blood pressure checked clinically or monitored 24 hours dynamically, the cost of Norvasc was 1.62-1.79 times higher than that of S-Amlodipine. The rate of adverse reaction in S-Amlodipine group (4.6%) was significantly lower than that in Norvasc group (10.3%). CONCLUSIONS:The domestic product of S-Amlodipine is more cost-effectiveness than the original Norvasc product.