痰热清注射液与喜炎平注射液辅助治疗慢性阻塞性肺病加重期的临床疗效和成本-效果分析

Clinical Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness of Tanreqing Injection and Xiyanping Injection in Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

目的比较痰热清注射液和喜炎平注射液辅助治疗慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重期的临床疗效和安全性,并应用成本-效果分析法对其进行药物经济学评价。方法回顾性分析2014年7月—2016年2月鄂东医疗集团黄石市中心医院慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重期使用痰热清注射液或喜炎平注射液治疗的病例资料,痰热清注射液治疗59例,喜炎平注射液治疗55例,另取46例为对照组(未使用中药注射剂),应用药物经济学中的成本-效果分析方法进行分析。结果对照组、痰热清注射液和喜炎平注射液治疗慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重期的成本分别为5209.66、5692.15和6482.95元,临床总有效率分别为60.87%、86.44%和69.10%,其成本-效果比分别为85.59、65.85和93.82。敏感度分析提示成本-效果与价格波动无影响。结论痰热清注射液辅助治疗慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重期的成本-效果优于喜炎平注射液。

Objective To analyse and compare the clinical efficiency, safety and cost-effectiveness of Tanreqing injection and Xiyanping injection in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease （AECOPD）.Methods The clinical data of patients with AECOPD who had been treated with Tanreqing injection （ n =59） and Xiyanping injection （ n =55） between July 20t4 and February 2016 in our hospital was analyzed retrospectively,while another 46 cases who had not used Tca[ injections were selected as the control group.Cost-effectiveness analysis was applied to the cases.Results In the control group,the cost of treatment of AECOPD with Tanreqing injection and Xiyanping injection was 5209.66, 5692.15 and 6482.95 yuan, respectively.The clinical efficiency was 60.87 %, 86.44% and 69.10 G respective- ly,while the cost-effectiveness rate was 85.59, 65.85 and 93.82, respectively. Sensitivity analysis indicated that cost-effectiveness and price fluctuation had no effect.Conclusion The cost-effectiveness of Tan reqing injection is better than that of Xiyanping injection in treatment of AECOPD.