摘要
目的:对利奈唑胺与替考拉宁治疗革兰阳性G+球菌感染成本-效果进行分析。方法:选取本院重症G+球菌感染住院患者130例,随机分为两组,利奈唑胺组(60例),予利奈唑胺600 mg/次,1次/12 h,静脉滴入,治疗时间7～28d;替考拉宁组(70例),予替考拉宁400 mg/次,头三剂1次/12 h,维持量1次/24 h,静脉滴入,治疗时间7～28 d。观察两组患者的疗效和不良反应,进行成本-效果分析。结果:利奈唑胺组60例,有效率95%,病原菌清除率78.3%,不良反应率15%;替考拉宁组70例,有效率80%,病原菌清除率67.1%,不良反应率13%。两组有效率和病原菌清除率有显著性差异。医疗费用分别为26 448.8元和20 282.7元。结论:对重症G+球菌感染的治疗,利奈唑胺有效性优于替考拉宁,是较佳的治疗方案。
Objective： To compare the cost - effectiveness of linezolid and teicoplanin in the treatment of G ^＋ cocci infection. Methods： 130 cases of patients with G^＋ cocci infection were randomly divided into two groups, linezolid group （60cases） were administered with linezolid 600 mg every 12 h for 7 - 28 days, and teicoplanin group （70 cases） were administered with teicoplanin 400 mg every 24 h for 7 -28 days after a loading dose of 400 mg every 12 h for three times. Adverse events and the efficacy were investigated. Results： For linezolid group and teicoplanin group the effective rates were 95% and 80%, pathogenic bacteria eradi- cation rates were 78.3% and 67.1%, and the adverse reactions rates were 15% and 13%, respectively. There were significant differences in the effective rates and pathogenic bacteria eradication rates between the two groups. Medical costs were RMB 26 448.8 and 20 282.7, respectively. Conclusions ： Linezolid is superior to teicoplanin in efficacy, being a preferable therapeutic agent.
出处
《天津药学》
2013年第2期28-30,共3页
Tianjin Pharmacy
关键词
利奈唑胺
替考拉宁
G+球菌感染
linezolid, teicoplanin, G^＋ cocci infection, cost - effectiveness
