Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Of 3 Kinds Hepatoprotectvie Drugs In The Treatment Of Liver Injury Caused By Antitubercular Agents

By the end of the eighty’s in twentieth Century, tuberculosis in some developed countries has been basically controlled, and gradually ignored the tuberculosis infection and dissemination. In China, known as the "white plague," and "Shilaojiusi" TB is also considered "understanding the etiology, prevention measures and treatment measures" of the disease. But in recent years, according to the WHO report, the current global infection the number of Mycobacterium tuberculosis have nearly 20 billion, the active pulmonary tuberculosis number about 2000 million. Each year the increased to about 900 million people, about 300 million patients died. The infection the number of more than 500 million. So the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis is still arduous. At present, TB treatment is mainly based on combination chemotherapy in the treatment of anti tuberculosis drugs isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide and so on several, due to long time of anti tuberculosis treatment increased the drug on the liver damage, according to statistics, liver injury caused by anti tuberculosis drugs has been ranked drug-induced liver injury in the first.The three kinds of hepatoprotective drug injection with GSH group (group A), licorice diammonium glycyrrhizinate sodium chloride injection (group B) and the effect of Compound Glycyrrhizin Injection (Group C) respectively against tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury in patients with clinical observation and treatment. Anti tuberculosis medication after 2,4,6, 8 weeks were examined liver function (ALT, AST, TBIL) and taking three hepatoprotective liver function tests.In this paper, the cost-effectiveness analysis is carried out by using the methods of drug economics. Direct costs include drug fees, inspection fees, charge injection; liver function before and after treatment in three groups of test results were analyzed by t test, significant results have three groups of patients after treatment than before treatment, improvement of liver function (P<0.05), and the three groups of patients after treatment of ALT two two were not statistically significant (P>0.05) statistics; adverse drug reactions (2 test), the incidence rate of adverse reactions was not statistically significant (P>0.05); cost effectiveness analysis, the ratio of cost and effect of group A (C/E) is 6.56, the minimum in the three groups, compared with B, C group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); in the sensitivity analysis, the effect of the results of the sensitivity analysis and cost analysis are basically the same.