OBJECTIVE:To compare the cost-effectiveness of cefazolin sodium pentahydrate versus cefazolin sodium in treat-ment of bacterial infection,and to provide reference for rational drug use in the clinic.METHODS:In retrospective study,207 bac-terial infection patients receiving cefazolin sodium pentahydrate or cefazolin sodium were selected from our hospital during Nov. 2014 to Dec. 2015,including 109 cases in cefazolin sodium pentahydrate group and 98 cases in cefazolin sodium group. Both groups received relevant medicine 2 g,bid,ivgtt,within 7 d. The clinical efficacies,bacteriological efficacies and safety of 2 groups were compared,and pharmacoeconomics of 2 therapy plans were evaluated.RESULTS:The clinical response rates of cefazo-lin sodium pentahydrate group and cefazolin sodium group were 89.91% and 74.49%,with statistical significance(P0.05). No drug-related ADR occurred in 2 groups during the treatment. Total shot-term(7 d)cost of cefazolin sodium pentahydrate group and cefazolin sodium group respec-tively were 4 391.43 yuan and 3 396.19 yuan. Using clinical response rate as effect index,cost-effectiveness ratio of them were 48.84 and 45.59,and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 64.55,which was lower than per capita GDP of Hengshui city. The sensitivity analysis results were in agreement with the cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Under the current economic sit-uation of Hengshui city,cefazolin sodium pentahydrate has cost-effectiveness advantage in the treatment of bacterial infection than cefazolin sodium.%目的:对比五水头孢唑林钠与头孢唑林钠治疗细菌感染的成本-效果,为临床合理用药提供参考.方法:采用回顾性研究方法,收集2014年11月-2015年12月我院使用五水头孢唑林钠或头孢唑林钠治疗细菌感染的患者207例,其中五水头孢唑林钠组109例、头孢唑林钠组98例.两组患者分别给予相应的药物2 g,bid,ivgtt,用药疗程不超过7 d.对比两组患者的临床疗效、细菌学疗效及安全性,并对两种治疗方案进行药物经济学评价.结果:五水头孢唑林钠组和头孢唑林钠组患者的临床有效率分别为89.91%和74.49%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05).两组患者用药期间均未见药物相关的不良反应发生.五水头孢唑林钠组和头孢唑林钠组方案的短期(7 d)治疗成本分别为4391.43和3396.19元,以临床有效率作为效果指标的成本-效果比分别为48.84、45.59,增量成本-效果比为64.55,小于我市人均国内生产总值.敏感度分析结果支持成本-效果分析结果.结论:在我市现有经济条件下,使用五水头孢唑林钠治疗细菌感染较头孢唑林钠更具有成本效果优势.
展开▼
