目的 對(duì)鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片和鹽酸克林霉素片治療急性扁桃體炎和急性支氣管炎成本-效果分析，為臨床合理用藥提供參考。方法 采用鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片與鹽酸克林霉素片治療急性扁桃體炎和急性支氣管炎的臨床觀察的療效和成本數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行成本-效果分析。結(jié)果 鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片組的臨床痊愈率為76.47%，有效率為100%；鹽酸克林霉素片組的臨床痊愈率為48.98%，有效率為91.84%，鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片組的臨床痊愈率、有效率均顯著高于鹽酸克林霉素片組（P<0.05）。鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片組總成本比鹽酸克林霉素片組高43.09元，前者的成本-效果比（C/E）為2.27，優(yōu)于后者的2.66；分別以痊愈率、有效率作為指標(biāo)，前者每多獲得一個(gè)百分點(diǎn)的痊愈率或有效率分別多花費(fèi)1.57元和5.28元；分別以顯效時(shí)間、痊愈時(shí)間作為指標(biāo)，前者每多節(jié)省一天顯效時(shí)間或痊愈時(shí)間分別多花費(fèi)153.89元和307.79元。觀察期間，鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片組不良反應(yīng)事件發(fā)生率為1.96%，鹽酸克林霉素片組不良反應(yīng)事件發(fā)生率為20.41%，經(jīng)Fisher檢驗(yàn)，組間差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P<0.05）。服藥依從性（口感）評(píng)價(jià)，鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片組口感“好”為82.35%，顯著高于鹽酸克林霉素片組8.16%（P<0.05）。結(jié)論 鹽酸克林霉素棕櫚酸酯分散片在治療急性扁桃體炎和急性支氣管炎中的臨床療效、成本-效果比、安全性和口感均優(yōu)于鹽酸克林霉素片。

Objective Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed thereafter on clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet and clindamycin tablet in treating acute tonsillitis and bronchitis so as to provide a reference for the rational administration of clinical doctors. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis of clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet group and clindamycin tablet group in treating acute tonsillitis and bronchitis was performed using the data of therapeutic effect and treatment cost. Results The clinical cure rate and effective rate of clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet group were significantly higher than clindamycin tablet group (76.47% vs 48.98%, P < 0.05; 100% vs 91.84%, P < 0.05). The total cost of the former was 43.09 yuan higher than the latter, and the cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E) of the former was 2.27,which was better than that of the latter, 2.66. Compared with clindamycin tablet group, as a percent of clinical cure rate and effective rate increased, the cost of clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet group will increase 1.57 and 5.28 yuan; the initiating time and recovery time reduced one day, the cost will increase 153.89 and 307.79 yuan. The rate of adverse events in clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet group was significantly lower than clindamycin tablet group (1.96% vs. 20.41%, Fisher test, P < 0.05). Additionally, the rate of good mouth-feel of clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet group was significantly higher than clindamycin tablet group (82.35% vs. 8.16%, P < 0.05) by drug mouth-feel evaluating. Conclusion Clindamycin palmitate hydrochloride dispersible tablet has better clinical therapeutic effect, cost-effectiveness, safety and mouth-fell profile compared to clindamycin tablet in the treatment of acute tonsillitis and bronchitis.