目的 對比評價地舒單抗與阿侖膦酸鹽用于骨質(zhì)疏松癥治療的藥物經(jīng)濟學(xué)研究結(jié)果，為骨質(zhì)疏松的臨床用藥治療決策提供參考。方法 ：以“骨質(zhì)疏松”“地舒單抗”“阿侖膦酸鹽”“成本效果”“成本效益”“成本效用”“經(jīng)濟性分析”“藥物經(jīng)濟學(xué)”為中文檢索詞，以“osteoporosis”“denosumab”“alendronate”“cost-effectiveness”“cost-utility”“cost-benefit”“economic-analysis”“pharmacoeconomics”為英文檢索詞，在中國知網(wǎng)、萬方數(shù)據(jù)、維普網(wǎng)、PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE等數(shù)據(jù)庫中檢索2000年1月1日－2022年10月20日公開發(fā)表的地舒單抗的藥物經(jīng)濟學(xué)評價文獻，按照納入與排除標準篩選文獻后，提取相關(guān)信息，使用衛(wèi)生經(jīng)濟學(xué)評價報告標準共識量表對納入文獻進行質(zhì)量評價，從文獻基本信息、文獻質(zhì)量、模型結(jié)構(gòu)及要素、健康狀態(tài)及效用值、成本項目和來源、健康產(chǎn)出、經(jīng)濟學(xué)評價、敏感性分析等對地舒單抗治療骨質(zhì)疏松的藥物經(jīng)濟學(xué)評價方法和結(jié)果進行描述性統(tǒng)計分析。結(jié)果 共納入6篇文獻，文獻總符合率均在80.00%以上。地舒單抗對比阿侖膦酸鹽治療骨質(zhì)疏松的藥物經(jīng)濟學(xué)評價研究主要采用馬爾可夫模型，模型結(jié)構(gòu)較為成熟；成本確認的范圍應(yīng)與所選的角度一致，包括直接成本、間接成本、隱形成本；效果值多源于已有文獻的隨機對照試驗系統(tǒng)評價或薈萃分析；敏感性分析采用確定性敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析，主要影響因素為成本。結(jié)論 地舒單抗在我國上市不久，本研究可為臨床骨質(zhì)疏松的治療提供新的思路，更規(guī)范地開展相關(guān)藥物經(jīng)濟學(xué)評價研究。

Objective To compare the pharmacologic results of diuzumab and alendronate for osteoporosis treatment and to provide reference for clinical treatment decisions of osteoporosis. Methods Take “osteoporosis”“denosumab”“alendronate”“cost-effect”“cost-utility” “cost-benefit”“economic analysis”“drug economics” as the Chinese search term, “osteoporosis”“denosumab”“alendronate” “cost-effectiveness”“cost-utility”“cost-benefit”“economic analysis”“pharmacoeconomics” as English, the pharmaceconomic evaluation literature of denosumab was publicly published from January 1, 2000 to October 20, 2022 in CNKI, Wan-Fang Data, VipNet, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE. After literature screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant information was extracted, and the quality of the included literature was evaluated using the standard consensus scale of the health economics evaluation report. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation methods and results of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis were analyzed from the basic information of literature, literature quality, model structure and elements, health status and utility value, cost items and sources, health output, economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis. Results A total of 6 literatures were included, and the total coincidence rate was above 80.00%. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation of denosumab versus alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis mainly used Markov model, and the model structure is relatively mature. The scope of cost recognition should be consistent with the selected Angle, including direct cost, indirect cost and hidden cost. The effect values were mostly from systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with existing literatures. Sensitivity analysis adopts deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and the main influencing factor is cost.Conclusion Shortly after the listing of denosumab, this study could provide a new idea for the treatment of osteoporosis and carry out the related pharmacoeconomic evaluation research in a more standard way.

R982