摘要
目的:比较3种用药方案治疗多发性骨髓瘤的经济学效果。方法:108例多发性骨髓瘤住院患者按照不同药物治疗方案分为A、B、C组,A组给予VAD方案(长春新碱+阿霉素+地塞米松),B组给予VAD+T方案(长春新碱+阿霉素+地塞米松+沙利度胺),C组给予TD方案(沙利度胺+地塞米松)。治疗各1个疗程后观察疗效,并运用成本-效果法进行分析。结果:A、B、C组的显效率分别为91.43%、97.30%、94.44%,成本分别为8 796.39、9 183.67、8 937.94元,成本-效果比分别为9 620.90、9 438.51、9 464.15;B、C组相对于A组的增量成本-效果比分别为6 597.61、4 702.66。结论:从安全、有效、经济的角度分析,B组方案治疗多发性骨髓瘤较佳。
OBJECTIVE： To compare the pharmacoeconomic effect of 3 therapeutic regimes for multiple myeloma （MM）. METHODS： 108 cases of MM were divided into group A, B and C according to therapeutic regimes. Group A was treated with VAD therapeutic regime （vincristine ＋ adriamycin ＋ dexamethasone）, group B was treated with VAD＋T therapeutic regime （vin- cristine ＋ adriamycin ＋ dexamethasone ＋thalidomide）, group C was treated with TD therapeutic regime （thalidomide＋dexametha- sone）. The curative efficacies were observed to analyze cost-effectiveness after one course of treatment. RESULTS： The effective rates of group A, B and C were 91.43%, 97.30% and 94.44%. The costs of them were 8 796.39 yuan, 9 183.67 yuan and 8 937.94 yuan. The cost-effectiveness ratios of them were 9 620.90, 94 38.51 and 9 464.15, respectively. The incremental cost-effec- tiveness ratios of group B and C were 6 597.61 and 4 702.66, compared with group A. CONCLUSIONS： From the perspective of pharmacoeconomics, therapeutic scheme of group B is optimal in the treatment of MM.
出处
《中国药房》
CAS
CSCD
2014年第14期1249-1251,共3页
China Pharmacy
基金
吉林省教育厅项目(No.吉教科合字[2011]第14号)
