期刊文献+

3种不同药物对高血压患者降压效果及其消费成本的对比分析 被引量:5

Comparison of Hypotensive Efficacy and Costs among 3 Drugs
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:评价临床常用抗高血压药氨氯地平、福辛普利、吲达帕胺治疗高血压的临床效果和经济效益。方法:选择120例高血压病患者随机分为3组,每组40例,分别口服氨氯地平5 mg、福辛普利10 mg、吲达帕胺2.5 mg治疗,并进行药物经济学分析。结果:服药8周后各组患者血压均有明显下降,其中吲达帕胺、福辛普利、氨氯地平治疗高血压总有效率分别为89.4%、86.5%、91.1%,不良反应发生率分别为7.5%、10%、7.5%,成本-效果比分别为5.25、1.65、0.39,氨氯地平、福辛普利相对于吲达帕胺的增量成本-效果比分别为260.89、37.14。结论:吲达帕胺是3种抗高血压药方案中治疗高血压的最佳药物,其消费成本较低,值得在基层医院选用。 OBJECTIVE : To evaluate the therapeutic and economical efficacies of amlodipine, fosinopril and indapamide for hypertension. METHODS: A total of 120 hypertensive patients were randomly divided into the 3 groups of 40 each: amlodipine (5 mg), fosinopril (10 mg) and indapamlde (2.5 mg). A pharmacoeconomics-eost-effectiven'ess analysis was performed. RESULTS: After treatment for 8 weeks, the blood pressure in all the 120 cases declined markedly, and the total effective rates of indapamide, fosinopril and amlodipine were 89.4 %, 86.5 % and 91.1%, respectively; the incidences of adverse drug reactions were 7.5 %, 10% and 7.5 %, respectively; and the cost-effectiveness ratios were 5.25, 1.65 and 0.39, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of amlodipine and fosinopril were 260.89 and 37.14, respectively as against indapamide. CONCLUSION: Indapamide was proved to be the optimal and most cheap hypotensive therapy among the 3 drugs, which thus deserved to be used preferably in primary level hospitals.
出处 《中国医院用药评价与分析》 2009年第6期460-462,共3页 Evaluation and Analysis of Drug-use in Hospitals of China
基金 中山市医学科研基金立项课题(编号2006064)
关键词 高血压 成本-效果分析 药物经济学 Hypertension Cost - effectiveness analysis Pharmacoeconomics
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

二级参考文献25

共引文献24

同被引文献84

引证文献5

二级引证文献34

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部