目的 比較法莫替丁與泮托拉唑治療小兒消化性潰瘍的臨床療效和經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。方法 選取2011年5月—2014年2月延安大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院收治的消化性潰瘍患兒172例，隨機(jī)分為治療組（97例）和對照組（75例），治療組在基礎(chǔ)治療上口服法莫替丁片，1片/次，2次/d。對照組則口服泮托拉唑膠囊，2粒/次，1次/d。兩組均持續(xù)治療1個(gè)月。觀察2組的臨床療效，并運(yùn)用成本–效果分析法進(jìn)行藥物經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)評(píng)價(jià)。結(jié)果 治療組和對照組臨床愈顯率分別為68.04%、76.00%，兩組比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義；總有效率分別為91.74%、94.67%，兩組比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。治療組成本–效果比顯著低于對照組，兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P<0.01）。治療組總治療花費(fèi)明顯低于對照組，兩組比較差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P<0.05）。結(jié)論 法莫替丁治療小兒消化性潰瘍有較好的臨床療效，且治療花費(fèi)明顯低于泮托拉唑，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)價(jià)值更加明顯，更加適合基層醫(yī)院使用。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomic analysis of famotidine and pantoprazole in the treatment of pediatric peptic ulcer. Methods Pediatric peptic ulcer patients (172 cases) in Affiliated Hospital of Yanan University from May 2011 to February 2014 were randomly divided into treatment (97 cases) and control (75 cases) groups. Patients in the treatment group were po administered with Famotidine Tablets, 1 tablet/time, twice daily. Patients in the control group were po administered with Pantoprazole Capsules, 2 grains/time, once daily. All the patients were treated continuously for 1 month. The total clinical efficacy was observed, and pharmacoeconomics was evaluated by the cost-effectiveness method.Results The markedly effective rates in the treatment and control groups were 68.04% and 76.00%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. The efficacies in the treatment and control groups were 91.74% and 94.67%, respectively, and there were no differences between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness of the treatment group was lower than that of the control group, and there were differences between the two groups (P < 0.01). The total treatment cost of treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and there were differences between the two groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion Famotidine has good curative effect in treatment of pediatric peptic ulcer, and the treatment cost is significantly lower than the pantoprazole with more obvious economic value, which is more suitable for primary hospitals.