CAJ | 학술논문

背景:膝骨关节炎的治疗通常是一个长期用药的过程,所需费用较高,因此选用合理的治疗方案至关重要. 目的:比较盐酸氨基葡萄糖、硫酸氨基葡萄糖治疗膝骨关节炎的成本-效果,进行经济学评价,为临床提供有效、实用治疗方案. 方法:将78例膝骨关节炎患者随机均分为口服盐酸氨基葡萄糖组和硫酸氨基葡萄糖组.观察治疗第3,6周两组骨关节炎指数和Lequesne疼痛与功能指数并运用药物经济学方法进行成本-效果分析. 结果与结论:膝骨关节炎治疗后两组患者各指标进行比较:①总有效率:第3周分别为83.8%和82.1%,第6周的总有效率分别为91.9%和90.7%.②成本-效果比:第3周分别为6.24和5.37,第6周分别为11.38和9.70.③敏感度分析:第3周分别为5.30和4.55,第6周分别为9.67和8.24.说明盐酸氨基葡萄糖与硫酸氨基葡萄糖均能明显地改善膝骨关节炎患者的关节炎指数及膝关节功能,但硫酸氨基葡萄糖有更好的成本-效果比.因此,硫酸氨基葡萄糖能比盐酸氨基葡萄糖以更少治疗成本获得更大的效益.
배경:슬골관절염적치료통상시일개장기용약적과정,소수비용교고,인차선용합리적치료방안지관중요. 목적:비교염산안기포도당、류산안기포도당치료슬골관절염적성본-효과,진행경제학평개,위림상제공유효、실용치료방안. 방법:장78례슬골관절염환자수궤균분위구복염산안기포도당조화류산안기포도당조.관찰치료제3,6주량조골관절염지수화Lequesne동통여공능지수병운용약물경제학방법진행성본-효과분석. 결과여결론:슬골관절염치료후량조환자각지표진행비교:①총유효솔:제3주분별위83.8%화82.1%,제6주적총유효솔분별위91.9%화90.7%.②성본-효과비:제3주분별위6.24화5.37,제6주분별위11.38화9.70.③민감도분석:제3주분별위5.30화4.55,제6주분별위9.67화8.24.설명염산안기포도당여류산안기포도당균능명현지개선슬골관절염환자적관절염지수급슬관절공능,단류산안기포도당유경호적성본-효과비.인차,류산안기포도당능비염산안기포도당이경소치료성본획득경대적효익.
BACKGROUND:Most patients of knee osteoarthritis need a long-term medication, so the costs are very high. Therefore, it is much important to choose the rational treatment project. @@@@OBJECTIVE:To compare the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine hydrochloride and glucosamine sulfate for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and to perform the economic evaluation in order to present more effective and utility strategy to treat osteoarthritis. @@@@METHODS:Total y 78 outpatients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly divided into A group (n=39, treated with glucosamine hydrochloride) and B group (n=39, treated with glucosamine sulfate). The Western Ontario McMaster index as wel as Lequesne pain and function index were observed at 3 and 6 weeks after treatment, and the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with medical economical study. @@@@RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Comparison of the curative effect of two groups after treatment: ①Total effective rates:the total efficiencies for the treatment of osteoarthritis in group A and group B at 3 weeks after treatment were 83.8%and 82.1%respectively (P>0.05), and at 6 weeks after treatment, the total efficiencies were 91.9%and 90.7%respectively (P>0.05); ②Cost-effectiveness analysis:the cost-effectiveness ratios in group A and group B at 3 weeks after treatment were 6.24 and 5.37 respectively, and at 6 weeks, the cost-effectiveness ratios were 11.38 and 9.70 individual y. ③Sensitiveness analysis:effective sensitiveness degrees in the two groups at 3 weeks after treatment were 5.30 and 4.55, and at 6 weeks were 9.67 and 8.24 respectively. This shows that both glucosamine hydrochloride and glucosamine sulfate have the capacity to improve Western Ontario McMaster index and knee joint function of the patients with knee osteoarthritis markedly, but the cost-effectiveness ratio of glucosamine sulfate is better than that of glucosamine hydrochloride. Therefore, glucosamine sulfate costs less medical resources and gain more effectiveness.