Suppr超能文献

使用沃克(伏诺拉生)-阿莫西林-克拉霉素三联疗法进行一线幽门螺杆菌根除治疗的成本效益分析

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of using vonoprazan-amoxicillin-clarithromycin triple therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori eradication.

作者信息

Kajihara Yusaku, Shimoyama Tadashi, Mizuki Ichiro

机构信息

a Department of Gastroenterology , Fuyoukai Murakami Hospital , Aomori , Japan.

b Department of Gastroenterology , Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine , Hirosaki , Japan.

出版信息

Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;52(2):238-241. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1250157. Epub 2016 Nov 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Vonoprazan (VPZ)-based triple therapy has been reported to have greater efficacy than a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication. However, because VPZ is more expensive than PPIs such as rabeprazole (RPZ), economic evaluation is essential.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on 209 patients who underwent first-line eradication of H. pylori infection in Fuyoukai Murakami Hospital from 1 March 2015 to 31 March 2016. Patients who received VPZ, amoxicillin (AMPC) and clarithromycin (CAM) were assigned to the VPZ/AC group (n = 111) and patients who received RPZ, AMPC and CAM to the RPZ/AC group (n = 98). We compared the patients' backgrounds, including age, gender, use of high-dose CAM, past history of peptic ulcer, smoking and drug-related adverse events between the two groups. We defined cost as direct medical costs per patient and effectiveness as the first-line eradication rate in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and analyzed the cost-effectiveness using the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the patients' backgrounds. The ITT analysis revealed an eradication rate of 94.6% for VPZ/AC and 86.7% for RPZ/AC. VPZ/AC cost 1155.4 Japanese yen (JPY) higher than RPZ/AC (34063.4 vs. 32908.0, JPY). CER of VPZ/AC was less than that of RPZ/AC (360.1 vs. 379.4, JPY per percent) and ICER of VPZ/AC was 147.0 JPY (1.28 Euro (EUR), 1 EUR =115 JPY) per percent.

CONCLUSIONS

VPZ/AC was more cost-effective than RPZ/AC as first-line therapy for H. pylori eradication.

摘要

背景

据报道,基于沃克帕唑(VPZ)的三联疗法在根除幽门螺杆菌(H. pylori)方面比基于质子泵抑制剂(PPI)的三联疗法更有效。然而,由于VPZ比雷贝拉唑(RPZ)等PPI更昂贵,因此进行经济评估至关重要。

方法

我们对2015年3月1日至2016年3月31日在富由开村上医院接受一线根除幽门螺杆菌感染治疗的209例患者进行了回顾性研究。接受VPZ、阿莫西林(AMPC)和克拉霉素(CAM)治疗的患者被分配到VPZ/AC组(n = 111),接受RPZ、AMPC和CAM治疗的患者被分配到RPZ/AC组(n = 98)。我们比较了两组患者的背景,包括年龄、性别、高剂量CAM的使用情况、消化性溃疡病史、吸烟情况以及药物相关不良事件。我们将成本定义为每位患者的直接医疗成本,将有效性定义为意向性治疗(ITT)分析中的一线根除率,并使用成本效益比(CER)和增量成本效益比(ICER)分析成本效益。

结果

患者背景无显著差异。ITT分析显示,VPZ/AC组的根除率为94.6%,RPZ/AC组为86.7%。VPZ/AC的成本比RPZ/AC高1155.4日元(34063.4日元对32908.0日元)。VPZ/AC的CER低于RPZ/AC(每百分比360.1日元对379.4日元),VPZ/AC的ICER为每百分比147.0日元(1.28欧元(EUR),1欧元 = 115日元)。

结论

作为一线治疗方案,VPZ/AC在根除幽门螺杆菌方面比RPZ/AC更具成本效益。

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