摘要
目的评价小牛血清去蛋白注射液治疗缺血性脑卒中的经济性。方法计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、中文期刊全文数据库和万方数据知识服务平台,收集在常规治疗基础上加用小牛血清去蛋白注射液或依达拉奉注射液治疗缺血性脑卒中的随机对照试验,利用间接比较的Meta分析对小牛血清去蛋白注射液(试验组)和依达拉奉注射液(对照组)治疗缺血性脑卒中的临床效果进行比较,根据Meta分析的结果选择成本-效果分析法或最小成本分析法,比较两者的经济性。结果本研究共纳入26篇文献,共计2765例患者。间接比较的Meta分析结果显示,试验组与对照组的临床效果无显著性差异[OR=0.83,95%CI(0.54,1.31)];最小成本分析结果显示,试验组与对照组的药物治疗费用分别为2391.76元和3761.24元,试验组与对照组费用差为1369.48元,试验组具有经济性。结论小牛血清去蛋白注射液对比依达拉奉注射液在治疗缺血性脑卒中方面更具有经济性,但仍需大样本、高质量研究对其临床效果进行进一步验证。
Objective To perform economic evaluation of deproteinised calf serum injection on cerebral infarction. Methods This analysis was conducted using a mixed methods approach combining published literature.Network Meta-analysis was conduct to compare the clinical effect between deproteinised calf serum injection and edaravone injection on cerebral infarction and then select cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-minimization analysis for economic evaluation.Results 26 eligible randomized clinical trials（RCTs） enrolling 2765 participants were included.Network Meta-analysis reveled that there were no significant difference between deproteinised calf serum injection and Edaravone injection on clinical effect[OR=0.83,95%CI（0.54,1.31）].The cost-minimization analysis showed that,the cost of two therapy strategies were as follows：deproteinised calf serum injection 2391.76 yuan,Edaravone injection 3761.24 yuan,respectively.The cost difference between the experimental group and the control group was 1369.48 yuan,and the experimental group was economical.Conclusion Deproteinised calf serum injection is considered more economical, but we need more strictly-designed and RCTs of large-scale sample to support our conclusion.
出处
《中国药物经济学》
2017年第11期9-14,共6页
China Journal of Pharmaceutical Economics
