期刊文献+

舒尼替尼治疗转移性肾细胞癌患者的药物经济学评价 被引量:1

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Sunitinib for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:评价舒尼替尼、索拉非尼、干扰素α(IFN-α)在卫生资源使用、治疗费用及健康产出等方面的差异,从而分析哪种药物具有更好的成本.效果,为政府报销和临床用药提供决策依据。方法:使用基于Microsoft^RExcel建立的Markov模型来模拟5年的疾病进展、成本及健康产出,运用成本一效果分析对转移性肾细胞癌一线治疗药物舒尼替尼、索拉非尼、IFN-α进行经济学评价。结果:模拟5年的成本结果显示,舒尼替尼组的人均成本高于IFN-α组,低于索拉非尼组;5年的健康结果显示,舒尼替尼组患者获得的生命年及质量调整生命年均大于索拉非尼组和IFN-α组。结论:舒尼替尼与IFN-αc相比不具有成本·效果优势,但与索拉非尼相比则为成本节约方案。 OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the difference of sunitinib, sorafenib and interferon-u (IFN-α) in terms of health source utilization, treatment cost and health output, and to analyze the optimal cost-effectiveness and provide reference for reimbursement decision and clinical drug use decision. METHODS: A Markov model was developed by using Microsoft^R Excel to simulate disease progression, cost and health outcomes over 5 years. Cost-effectiveness analysis was adopted for economic analysis of sunitinib, sorafenib and IFN-α for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: The reference case results indicated that, total average cost per capita of sunitinb group was higher than IFN-α group but lower than sorafenib group over 5 years; concerning health outcomes, obtained life year and quality adjusted life year of sunitinb group both were higher than those of sorafenib group and IFN-α group. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that sunitinib is not as cost-effective as IFN-α, but it is a cost-saving alternative to sorafenib.
出处 《中国药房》 CAS CSCD 2012年第26期2401-2404,共4页 China Pharmacy
关键词 转移性肾细胞癌 药物经济学评价 成本-效果分析 舒尼替尼 索拉非尼 干扰素Α Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Pharmacoeconomic evaluation Cost-effectiveness analysis Sunitinib Sorafenib IFN-α
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献23

  • 1陈英耀.OECD国家卫生费用和卫生服务的趋势[J].中国卫生资源,2001,4(3):141-144. 被引量:10
  • 2李双海.公共项目投资评价的贴现率选择[J].财会月刊(中),2007(7):40-41. 被引量:4
  • 3国家发改委,建设部.建设项目经济评价方法与参数[M].第3版.北京:中国计划出版社,2006.
  • 4SMITH D, GRAVELLE H. The practice of discounting economic evaluation of health care interventions. CHE Technical Paper Series 19( CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES) [ EB/OL]. [ 2000 - 10 ]. http://www, york. ac. uk/inst/che/pdf/tp 19. pdf.
  • 5CADTH. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies :Canada. 3^RD Edition [ EB/OL ]. [2006 - 03 - 21 ]. http :// www. cadth, ca/index, php/en/hta/reportspublications/search? keywords = Guidelines + for + the + economic + evalution + of + health + technologies% 3A + Canada.
  • 6KRAHN M, GAFNI A. Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions [ J ]. Med Care, 1993,31 ( 5 ) :403 - 418.
  • 7Drummond,MF.The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines[J] .Health Policy, 1997,40:199.
  • 8Ministry of health, welfare and sports. The Future of Health Insurance System [ S ]. Dutch, 1999.
  • 9Ziekenfondsraad.Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research [ S]. Ziekenfondsraad amst elveen, March,1999.
  • 10Tobin H,Tumer N,Wyatt G.Pharmacoeconomics 2002:A Concise Guide [ S ]. PPR Communications, Ltd., Cambridge, UK. 2002.

共引文献52

同被引文献9

引证文献1

二级引证文献4

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