GINA吸入治疗方案与其他疗法治疗儿童哮喘的成本-效果分析

Cost-effectiveness analysis in child asthma treated with GINA inhaled therapeutic regimen and other therapy

目的研究哮喘治疗的GINA吸入治疗方案与其他疗法的成本-效果分析(CEA)。方法随机病例对照研究,用10 cm线性可视性模拟分数图判定疗效。结果吸入疗法组单次药费(180.6±110.5)元,而其他疗法组为(102.8±53.2)元,吸入疗法组药费显著高于其他疗法组(P<0.01);1 a随访结果表明,吸入疗法组药费(2 608±1 630)元,而其他疗法组需(3 054±2 103)元,显著高于吸入疗法组(P<0.01);吸入疗法组满意分数为(86.8±13.1)%,而其他疗法组仅(53.1±19.7)%(P<0.01),其得到的CEA比分别为30.04和57.51,用吸入治疗后儿童上学缺课情况显著下降(86±15)与(328±94)人天(P均<0.01)。结论吸入治疗较其他抗喘治疗能产生较好的治疗效果,其花费也低于其他疗法组。

Objective It is to study the cost-effectiveness analysis （CEA） in asthma treated with GINA inhaled therapeutic regimen and other therapy. Methods Random ease-control study was done, and the curative effect was assessed with 10 em linear visual analogue scale. Results Once cost of inhaled therapy group was （180.6 ± 110.5） Yuan, other therapy group was （102.8 ± 53.2） Yuan. The cost of inhaled therapy group was significant higher than that of other therapy group （P 〈 0.01 ）. After one year, the cost of other therapy group （（3 054 ± 2 103） Yuan） was significant higher than that of inhaled therapy group （ （2 608 ± 1 630） Yuan） （ P 〈 0.01 ）. The satisfaction score of inhaled therapy group was （86.8 ±_ 13.1 ） 96 and that of other therapy group was （53.1 ± 19.7） 96 （P 〈 0.01 ）. The CEA were 30.04 and 57.51 respectively, the loss of schooling was declined significantly （（86 ± 15） d and （328 ± 94） d ） （P〈0.01）. Conclusion Inhaled therapy has better effect and low cost than other therapy.