摘要
目的比较文拉法辛和米氮平治疗难治性抑郁症(TRD)的成本-效果。方法选取2014年6月—2016年6月凉山州第一人民医院收治的TRD患者162例,随机分为文拉法辛组和米氮平组,每组81例。文拉法辛组患者口服盐酸文拉法辛缓释片,米氮平组患者口服米氮平片。比较两组患者的汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评分、临床治疗有效率及成本-效果。结果治疗前、后,两组患者HAMD评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后两组患者HAMD评分均低于治疗前(P<0.05)。两组患者临床治疗有效率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。米氮平组患者治疗期间的医疗费用低于文拉法辛组,成本-效果高于文拉法辛组。以米氮平组为参照,计算文拉法辛组的增量成本效果比(△C/△E)为23.23。结论文拉法辛和米氮平治疗TRD患者的临床疗效和成本-效果相近。
Objective Compare the cost - effectiveness of venlafaxine and mirtazapine in treating treatment - resistant depression （TRD）. Methods A total of 162 patients with TRD were selected in the First Peopled Hospital of Liangshan form June 2014 to June 2016. They were divided into A group and B group, each of 81 cases. Patients of A group were treated with venlafaxine, while patients of B group were treated with mirtazapine. The HAMD score, clinical treatment efficiency, and cost -effectiveness were compared between the two groups. Results No statistically significant differences of HAMD score was found between the two groups both before and after the treatment （P 〉 0. 05 ）. After treatment, the HAMD score of the two groups were all statistically significantly lower than that before treatment （P 〈 0. 05 ）. No statistically significant differences of clinical treatment efficiency was found between the two groups （P 〉0. 05）. The medical cost of B group was lower than that of A group, cost - effectiveness of B group was higher than that of A group. With B group calculated the AC/AE of A group was 23. 23. Conclusion Clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of venlafaxine and mirtazapine in the treatment of TRD patients is similar.
出处
《中国全科医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2016年第B12期338-339,共2页
Chinese General Practice
关键词
抑郁症
难治性
文拉法辛
米氮平
治疗结果
成本及成本分析
Depressive disorder，treatment - resistant； Venlafaxine； Mirtazapine ； Treatment outcome； Costs and cost analysis
