药物经济学视角下的剂型比较—策略探索与实证案例OA
Comparison of Formulations from A Pharmacoeconomic Perspective:Strategies and An Empirical Case Study
目的 探讨同一种药物不同剂型对其经济性产生的影响.方法 检索已公开发表的同种药物不同剂型之间比较的药物经济学经典文献,归纳其主要研究特征,并总结了进行此类药物经济评估的关键方法学要点.并以奥马环素治疗成人社区获得性细菌性肺炎(CABP)的最小成本分析作为案例研究,比较针剂-片剂序贯治疗与奥马环素针剂全程治疗的经济性,展示两种不同剂型的药物对奥马环素治疗CABP的经济效益影响.结果 选择了 6 篇有代表性的同种药物口服剂型对比其他剂型的药物经济学评价文献,这些研究来自 5 个国家,覆盖多种疾病领域,主要使用了成本-效果分析、成本-效用分析、最小成本法分析,共有 3 项研究运用了决策分析模型.综合分析发现,静脉注射制剂相较于全程使用口服制剂会产生更高的医药管理成本和间接成本.奥马环素治疗CABP的案例研究显示,其针剂-片剂序贯方案相比于针剂全程治疗方案在总成本上节约了876.42 元(4 730.98 元vs.5 607.40 元),其中药品费用节约30.42 元(3 032.98元vs.3 063.40 元),住院费用节约846.00 元(1 698.00 元vs.2 544.00 元),主要的成本差异来源于除药品费用之外的住院费用.单因素敏感性分析显示,治疗所需的住院天数对基础分析结果影响最大.结论 对不同剂型的药物进行药物经济学评价时,选择不同的研究视角、是否考虑用药依从性、采用何种研究假设等均会对结果产生较大影响.
Objective To explore the effect of different dosage forms of the same drug on its economy.Methods This study reviews typical pharmacoeconomic literature that compares different formulations of the same drug,summarizing their main research characteristics and highlighting the essential methodological considerations for conducting such phamacoeconomic research.To empirically validate these methodological points,this article employs a minimal cost analysis of omadacycline in the treatment of adult community-acquired bacterial pneumonia(CABP)as an example.It compares the costs of sequential intravenous-to-oral therapy versus full-course intravenous therapy with omadacycline,quantitatively demonstrating the economic benefits of introducing an oral formulation for the treatment of CABP with omadacycline.Results This study selected six representative pharmacoeconomic evaluation studies comparing oral formulations of the same drug to other formulations.These studies originate from five countries and cover various disease areas.The primary methods used were cost-effectiveness analysis,cost-utility analysis,or cost-minimization analysis.Additionally,three studies employed decision analysis models.The comprehensive review illustrated that treatment regimens involving intravenous injection formulation incurred higher medical management costs and indirect costs compared to exclusive utilization of oral formulation throughout the treatment.The empirical pharmacoeconomic study of omadacycline showed that adopting a sequential intravenous-to-oral treatment approach resulted in a total savings of 876.42 RMB (4 730.98 RMB vs. 5 607.40 RMB) when compared to full-course intravenous treatment. The cost savings in medication amounted to 30.42 RMB (3 032.98 RMB vs. 3 063.40 RMB),while the savings in non-drug inpatient costs were 846.00 RMB (1 698.00 RMB vs. 2 544.00 RMB). The primary cost difference originated from direct medical costs excluding drug expenditures. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the duration of hospital stay had the most significant impact on the economics the two formulations of omadacycline. Conclusion In the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of drugs with different dosage forms,the selection of different research perspectives,whether medication compliance is considered,and which research hypothesis is adopted will have a great impact on the results.
张士勤;简怡飞;肖敦明
博雅智汇大健康研究院、北京大学中国卫生经济研究中心,北京 100080中山大学药学院医药经济研究所,广州 510006复旦大学公共卫生学院,上海 200032
药学
药物经济学剂型口服静脉注射制剂奥马环素
PharmacoeconomicsFormulationOralIntravenous preparationOmadacycline
《中国药物经济学》 2025 (2)
10-16,7
评论