5种不同给药方案治疗急性脑梗死的成本-效果分析

摘要

目的:比较不同给药方案治疗急性脑梗死的成本-效果.方法:根据药物的不同,将300例急性脑梗死患者分为A组(应用参麦注射液)、B组(应用注射用血塞通)、C组(应用奥扎格雷钠注射液)、D组(应用注射用灯盏花素)、E组(应用注射用丹参),5组疗程均为14d.观察各组的疗效和不良反应,并进行成本-效果分析.结果:A、B、C、D、E组总成本分别为3 398.06、2 538.74、3 122.54、2 570.10、2 208.20元；总有效率分别为93.33％、90.00％、91.67％、88.33％、68.33％；成本-效果比分别为36.41、28.21、34.06、29.10、32.32;A、B、C、D组相对E组的增量成本-效果比分别为47.59、15.25、39.17、18.10.结论:与其他组比较,血塞通治疗急性脑梗死成本-效果比更优.%OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharma-co-economic effectiveness of 5 different therapeutic regimes for acute cerebral infarction. METHODS: 300 patients with acute cerebral infarction were divided into 5 groups: A group (Shenmai Injection), B group (Injection of Xuesaitong), C group (Sodium Ozagrel Injection), D group (Injection of Breviscapine), E group (Danshen Injection). The treatment was 14 d for each group. After therapy, efficacy and adverse reactions were observed, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. RESULTS: The costs of 5 groups were 3 398.06, 2 538.74, 3 122.54, 2 570.10, 2 208.20 yuan, respectively; The effective rates were 93.33% , 90.00% , 91.67% , 88.33% , 68.33%, respectively; The cost-effectiveness ratios were 36.41, 28.21, 34.06, 29.10, 32.32, respectively; As compared with group E, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of group A, B, C and D were 47.59, 15.25, 39.17 and 18.10. CONCLUSION: Compared with the other 4 groups, Injection of Xuesaitong has better cost-effectiveness.