Suppr超能文献

泼尼卡酯与氟轻松治疗炎症性皮肤病的成本效益研究。

Prednicarbate versus fluocortin for inflammatory dermatoses. A cost-effectiveness study.

作者信息

de Tiedra A, Mercadal J, Lozano R

机构信息

Laboratorios Novag, S.A., Grupo Ferrer, Barcelona, Spain.

出版信息

Pharmacoeconomics. 1997 Aug;12(2 Pt 1):193-208. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199712020-00009.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare, from a societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of topical prednicarbate 0.25% and fluocortin 0.75% in the treatment of inflammatory dermatoses, such as dermatitis and eczema, in Spain. Effectiveness and tolerability were determined by means of a meta-analysis of 17 randomised double-blind controlled clinical trials, using a MEDLINE search and a second-level reference search. The data were obtained on the basis of a per-protocol assessment system, and the Mantel-Haenszel method (as modified by Peto) was used to make the statistical analysis. In terms of economic assessment, a model was developed in which the expected total cost was determined by the cost of the medicine (adjusted to the recommended dosage) plus the costs derived from the ineffectiveness and/or adverse effects associated with the different treatments. A sensitivity analysis was carried out on the basis of changes in: (i) clinical effectiveness; (ii) price of prednicarbate; (iii) incidence of adverse reactions; (iv) costs associated with ineffectiveness and/or adverse effects; and (v) the regimen under which prednicarbate was administered. The meta-analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 alternatives (p = 0.001). The value of a combined odds ratio [and 95% confidence interval (95% CI)] for the combined studies of prednicarbate was 1.54 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.15), compared with 0.73 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.89) for fluocortin relative to moderate or moderate-to-high potency corticosteroids. Effectiveness was 84.9% for prednicarbate and 69.7% for fluocortin, while frequency of adverse effects was 3.5% for prednicarbate and 4.9% for fluocortin. The total expected cost per patient treated was found to be 4600 Spanish pesetas (Pta) [$US37.10; 1996 values] for prednicarbate and Pta5778 ($US46.60; 1996 values) for fluocortin. The total expected cost per patient successfully treated was Pta5608 ($US45.20) for prednicarbate and Pta8680 ($US70) for fluocortin. Prednicarbate has been shown to have a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio, when compared with fluocortin, for the treatment of dermatitis and eczema in Spain. Additional pharmacoeconomic studies on topical corticosteroids are required, including the use of new variables, long term analysis and/or the measurements of the effect of the drug on patients' quality of life.

摘要

本研究的目的是从社会角度比较0.25%的丙缩羟强的松龙和0.75%的氟可的索治疗西班牙炎症性皮肤病(如皮炎和湿疹)的成本效益。通过对17项随机双盲对照临床试验进行荟萃分析来确定有效性和耐受性,采用医学文献数据库(MEDLINE)检索和二级参考文献检索。数据是基于意向性分析评估系统获得的,并使用Mantel-Haenszel方法(经Peto修改)进行统计分析。在经济评估方面,开发了一个模型,其中预期总成本由药物成本(根据推荐剂量调整)加上不同治疗相关的无效和/或不良反应产生的成本确定。基于以下方面的变化进行了敏感性分析:(i)临床有效性;(ii)丙缩羟强的松龙价格;(iii)不良反应发生率;(iv)与无效和/或不良反应相关的成本;(v)丙缩羟强的松龙给药方案。荟萃分析表明,两种药物之间存在统计学显著差异(p = 0.001)。丙缩羟强的松龙联合研究的合并比值比[及95%置信区间(95%CI)]值为1.54(95%CI 1.10至2.15),而相对于中效或中强效皮质类固醇,氟可的索的合并比值比为0.73(95%CI 0.60至0.89)。丙缩羟强的松龙的有效性为84.9%,氟可的索为69.7%,而丙缩羟强的松龙的不良反应发生率为3.5%,氟可的索为4.9%。发现每位接受治疗患者的预期总成本,丙缩羟强的松龙为4600西班牙比塞塔(Pta)[37.10美元;1996年价值],氟可的索为5778 Pta(46.60美元;1996年价值)。每位成功治疗患者的预期总成本,丙缩羟强的松龙为5608 Pta(45.20美元),氟可的索为8680 Pta(70美元)。在西班牙,与氟可的索相比,丙缩羟强的松龙已被证明在治疗皮炎和湿疹方面具有良好的成本效益比。需要对局部用皮质类固醇进行更多的药物经济学研究,包括使用新变量、长期分析和/或测量药物对患者生活质量的影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验