Suppr超能文献

昂丹司琼与甲氧氯普胺治疗方案的成本及成本效益分析:来自意大利一家医院的观点

Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide regimens: a hospital perspective from Italy.

作者信息

Ballatori E, Roila F, Berto P, De Angelis V, Neri C, Olivieri A, Tonato M, Del Favero A

机构信息

Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Public Health, University of L'Aquila, Italy.

出版信息

Pharmacoeconomics. 1994 Mar;5(3):227-37. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199405030-00006.

Abstract

In a large double-blind study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Italy, 289 patients underwent 3 consecutive cycles of cisplatin chemotherapy. Antiemetic treatment with ondansetron plus dexamethasone was more efficacious and better tolerated, but also more expensive, than treatment with metoclopramide plus both dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. To evaluate the different costs of the 2 antiemetic regimens, we conducted a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. Direct costs of antiemetic therapy (acquisition cost of drugs, materials and time spent by nurses to prepare and administer therapies), cleanup after emesis, rescue medication and adverse events were evaluated. Antiemetic drug acquisition costs per patient were 5.23-fold higher for the ondansetron regimen than for the metoclopramide regimen. However, when the costs of materials and nursing time required to prepare and administer the antiemetic regimens were included, this ratio was 3.77. Furthermore, including the cost of emesis, rescue antiemetic treatments and medication used to treat adverse events, hospital costs per patient were 3.21-fold higher with the ondansetron regimen during the first cycle, 3.08-fold higher during second cycle and 2.89-fold higher during third cycle of chemotherapy. Complete protection from vomiting and from both vomiting and nausea with ondansetron occurred, respectively, in 78.7 and 69.1% of patients in the first cycle, 73.8 and 57.3% in the second cycle, and 74.2 and 58.1% in third cycle of chemotherapy. Corresponding figures for the metoclopramide regimen were 59.5 and 50.4%, 53.6 and 37.1%, and 46.8 and 27.3%, respectively. Thus, the cost per successfully treated (completely protected) patient was 2.43- and 2.34-fold higher, respectively, for ondansetron at the first cycle, 2.23- and 1.99-fold higher, respectively, at second cycle, and 1.82- and 1.36-fold higher, respectively, at third cycle. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that, while ondansetron has a greater acquisition cost than metoclopramide, the ondansetron regimen costs per successfully-treated patient substantially decrease when all direct hospital costs are taken into account.

摘要

在意大利进行的一项关于止吐疗法的大型双盲研究中,289名患者接受了连续3个周期的顺铂化疗。与甲氧氯普胺联合地塞米松和苯海拉明治疗相比,昂丹司琼联合地塞米松的止吐治疗更有效且耐受性更好,但成本也更高。为了评估这两种止吐方案的不同成本,我们从医院角度进行了一项回顾性成本效益分析。评估了止吐治疗的直接成本(药物购置成本、材料成本以及护士准备和实施治疗所花费的时间)、呕吐后的清理成本、急救药物成本和不良事件成本。昂丹司琼方案的每位患者止吐药物购置成本比甲氧氯普胺方案高5.23倍。然而,当将准备和实施止吐方案所需的材料成本和护理时间成本包括在内时,这一比例为3.77。此外,将呕吐成本、急救止吐治疗成本和用于治疗不良事件的药物成本包括在内,在化疗的第一个周期,昂丹司琼方案的每位患者医院成本高3.21倍,第二个周期高3.08倍,第三个周期高2.89倍。在化疗的第一个周期,昂丹司琼方案分别使78.7%的患者完全避免呕吐,69.1% 的患者完全避免呕吐和恶心;在第二个周期,这两个比例分别为73.8%和57.3%;在第三个周期,分别为74.2%和58.1%。甲氧氯普胺方案的相应数字分别为59.5%和50.4%、53.6%和37.1%、46.8%和27.3%。因此,在第一个周期,成功治疗(完全得到保护)的每位患者使用昂丹司琼的成本分别高2.43倍和2.34倍;在第二个周期,分别高2.23倍和1.99倍;在第三个周期,分别高1.82倍和1.36倍。总之,该研究表明,虽然昂丹司琼的购置成本高于甲氧氯普胺,但当考虑到所有直接医院成本时,昂丹司琼方案治疗成功患者的成本会大幅降低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验