牛/猪肺表面活性物质治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的快速卫生技术评估

郭华; 邵云; 刘兰兰; 任鹏飞; 付强; 孙楠; 周建超; 康建; 任艳丽

doi:10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2022.22.20

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

牛/猪肺表面活性物质治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的快速卫生技术评估

循证药学 | 更新时间：2023-02-22

- 牛/猪肺表面活性物质治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的快速卫生技术评估
- Rapid health technology assessment of bovine pulmonary surfactant versus porcine ones in the treatment of preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome
- 中国药房 2022年33卷第22期页码：2786-2790
- 作者机构：
  
  1.郑州大学第三附属医院药学部，郑州　450052
  2.郑州大学第一附属医院药学部，郑州　450052
- 作者简介：
  
  副主任药师，硕士。研究方向：临床药学、循证药学。电话：0371-66903015。E-mail：guohuahua0421@163.com
  主任药师，硕士。研究方向：药事管理。电话：0371-66903150。E-mail：yanli535@163.com
- 基金信息：
  
  河南省卫生健康委员会委托项目(豫卫药政函〔2021〕6号);河南省医学科技攻关计划联合共建项目(LHGJ20200463)
- DOI：10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2022.22.20
  中图分类号： R722.1;R969.3
- 纸质出版日期：2022-11-30，
  
  收稿日期：2022-03-31，
  
  修回日期：2022-10-08，
扫描看全文
郭华,邵云,刘兰兰等.牛/猪肺表面活性物质治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的快速卫生技术评估 ^Δ[J].中国药房,2022,33(22):2786-2790.

GUO Hua,SHAO Yun,LIU Lanlan,et al.Rapid health technology assessment of bovine pulmonary surfactant versus porcine ones in the treatment of preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2022,33(22):2786-2790.
郭华,邵云,刘兰兰等.牛/猪肺表面活性物质治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征的快速卫生技术评估 ^Δ[J].中国药房,2022,33(22):2786-2790. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2022.22.20.

GUO Hua,SHAO Yun,LIU Lanlan,et al.Rapid health technology assessment of bovine pulmonary surfactant versus porcine ones in the treatment of preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2022,33(22):2786-2790. DOI： 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2022.22.20.

摘要

目的

比较牛肺表面活性物质（PS）和猪PS治疗早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征（RDS）的有效性、安全性和经济性。

方法

计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知网、SinoMed、万方数据、国内外卫生技术评估（HTA）机构官方网站及相关数据库，收集牛PS与猪PS对比治疗早产儿RDS的HTA报告、系统评价/Meta分析和药物经济学研究，检索时限均为建库起至2022年2月。资料提取和质量评价后，对纳入研究的结果进行描述性分析。

结果

共纳入1篇HTA报告、6篇系统评价/Meta分析、6篇药物经济学研究。牛PS在新生儿重症监护病房住院时间和肺外指标发生率方面与猪PS相当；PS再治疗率、血气指标、总有效率、动脉导管未闭发生率方面，猪PS较牛PS更有优势；两者在死亡率和支气管肺发育不良、漏气综合征、肺出血发生率方面的结果存在争议。经济性方面，两组患儿的平均住院费用、每剂给药成本的差异均无统计学意义（

＞0.05）；与猪PS比较，牛PS的平均每剂浪费成本更高（

＜0.001），治疗24 h平均费用更低（

＜0.05）；平均药品费用的结果存在争议。

结论

牛PS治疗早产儿RDS的有效性、安全性和经济性与猪PS相当或劣于猪PS，但其劣势尚不确定是否具有显著的临床意义。

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness，safety and economy of bovine pulmonary surfactant （PS） and porcine PS in the treatment of preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome （RDS）.

METHODS

Retrieved from PubMed，Embase，Cochrane Library，CNKI，SinoMed，Wanfang and health technology assessment （HTA） organization websites and relevant database，HTA report，systematic review/meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic study about bovine PS versus porcine PS in the treatment of preterm neonates with RDS were included from the inception to Feb 2022. Data extraction and quality evaluation were carried out for the included literature，and then research results were summarized and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 1 HTA report，6 systematic reviews/meta-analyses，and 6 pharmacoeconomic studies were included. There appeared to be no significant differences between bovine PS and porcine PS in terms of time staying in neonatal intensive care unit and extra-pulmonary outcomes. In terms of PS re-treatment，blood gas index，total effective rate and the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus，porcine PS was superior to bovine PS. Results from other indicators，such as mortality， the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia，air leakage syndrome，pulmonary hemorrhage，were still controversial. In terms of economy，there was no statistical difference in average hospital charges and administration cost per dose between two groups （

＞0.05）； compared with porcine PS，mean wastage cost per dose of bovine PS was higher （

＜0.001），and 24 h treatment cost of bovine PS was lower （

＜0.05）； the results of average medication cost were controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness， safety and economy of bovine PS are found to be similar or inferior to porcine PS. It is not certain whether the inferiority has clinical significance.

关键词

肺表面活性物质早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征有效性安全性经济性快速卫生技术评估

Keywords

preterm neonaterespiratory distress syndromeeffectivenesssafetyeconomyrapid health technology assessment

references

王卫平，孙锟，常立文. 儿科学[M]. 9版. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2018：107-111.

SWEET D G，CARNIELLI V，GREISEN G，et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome：2019 update[J]. Neonatology，2019，115（4）：432-450.

NAJAFIAN B，KARIMI-SARI H，KHOSRAVI M H，et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of two available natural surfactants in Iran，Curosurf and Survanta in treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome：a rando-mized clinical trial[J]. Contemp Clin Trials Commun，2016，3：55-59.

MIRZARAHIMI M，BARAK M. Comparison efficacy of Curosurf and Survanta in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Pak J Pharm Sci，2018，31（2）：469-472.

叶冬炜，王莉，刘叔文. 卫生技术评估在欧洲4国的应用及对我国的启示[J]. 中国药房，2022，33（1）：1-6.

嵇承栋，朱琳懿，万悦竹，等. 国际卫生技术评估机构协作网卫生技术评估报告清单解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志，2016，16（3）：369-372.

SHEA B J，REEVES B C，WELLS G，et al. AMSTAR 2：a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions，or both[J]. BMJ，2017，358：j4008.

CHAO Y，GROBELNA A. Curosurf（poractant Alfa）for the treatment of infants at risk for or experiencing respiratory distress syndrome：a review of clinical effectiveness，cost-effectiveness，and guidelines[EB/OL].（2018-09-18）[2022-02-28].https：//www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Curosurf-（poractant-alfa）-for-the-Treatment-of-At-A-Chao-Gro- belna/8740666cf271657e7e6ec1806589e6f9bd95ee0ahttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Curosurf-(poractant-alfa)-for-the-Treatment-of-At-A-Chao-Gro-belna/8740666cf271657e7e6ec1806589e6f9bd95ee0a.

SÁNCHEZ LUNA M，BACHER P，UNNEBRINK K，et al. Beractant and poractant Alfa in premature neonates with respiratory distress syndrome：a systematic review of real-world evidence studies and randomized controlled trials[J]. J Perinatol，2020，40（8）：1121-1134.

FOLIGNO S，DE LUCA D. Porcine versus bovine surfactant therapy for RDS in preterm neonates：pragmatic meta-analysis and review of physiopathological plausibility of the effects on extra-pulmonary outcomes[J]. Respir Res，2020，21（1）：8.

TRIDENTE A，DE MARTINO L，DE LUCA D. Porcine vs bovine surfactant therapy for preterm neonates with RDS：systematic review with biological plausibility and pragmatic meta-analysis of respiratory outcomes[J]. Respir Res，2019，20（1）：28.

SINGH N，HALLIDAY H L，STEVENS T P，et al. Comparison of animal-derived surfactants for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev，2015（12）：CD010249.

ZHANG L，CAO H Y，ZHAO S，et al. Effect of exo-genous pulmonary surfactants on mortality rate in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome：a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Pulm Pharmacol Ther，2015，34：46-54.

张强强，李国庆，钟丽红. 固尔苏和珂立苏治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征有效性和安全性的Meta分析[J]. 中国现代医药杂志，2019，21（11）：11-19.

SEKAR K，FUENTES D，KRUKAS-HAMPEL M R，et al. Health economics and outcomes of surfactant treatments for respiratory distress syndrome among preterm infants in US level Ⅲ/Ⅳ neonatal intensive care units[J]. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther，2019，24（2）：117-127.

BROWN S，HURREN J，SARTORI H. Poractant Alfa versus beractant for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome：a retrospective cost analysis[J]. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther，2018，23（5）：367-371.

ZAYEK M M，EYAL F G，SMITH R C. Comparison of the pharmacoeconomics of calfactant and poractant Alfa in surfactant replacement erapy[J]. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther，2018，23（2）：146-151.

GERDES J S，SEIBERLICH W，SIVIERI E M，et al. An open label comparison of calfactant and poractant Alfa administration traits and impact on neonatal intensive care unit resources[J]. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther，2006，11（2）：92-100.

MARSH W，SMEEDING J，YORK J M，et al. A cost minimization comparison of two surfactants-beractant and poractant Alfa：based upon prospectively designed，comparative clinical trial data[J]. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther，2004，9（2）：117-125.

郭军，钟晶，李静晶. 珂立苏和固尔苏在早产呼吸窘迫综合征患儿中通气治疗对患儿通气效果及治疗费用影响[J]. 首都食品与医药，2018，25（10）：30-31.

BAROUTIS G，KALEYIAS J，LIAROU T，et al. Comparison of three treatment regimens of natural surfactant preparations in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Eur J Pediatr，2003，162（7/8）：476-480.

LEMYRE B，FUSCH C，SCHMÖLZER G M，et al. Poractant Alfa versus bovine lipid extract surfactant for infants 24+0 to 31+6 weeks gestational age：a randomized controlled trial[J]. PLoS One，2017，12（5）：e0175922.

BEEN J V，ROURS I G，KORNELISSE R F，et al. Chorioamnionitis alters the response to surfactant in preterm infants[J]. J Pediatr，2010，156（1）：10-15.e1.

COGO P E，FACCO M，SIMONATO M，et al. Pharmacokinetics and clinical predictors of surfactant redosing in respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Intensive Care Med，2011，37（3）：510-517.

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

司美格鲁肽治疗2型糖尿病的快速卫生技术评估

玛巴洛沙韦治疗流行性感冒的快速卫生技术评估

拉考沙胺与卡马西平治疗成人新诊癫痫的有效性和安全性对比

卡博替尼治疗晚期甲状腺癌有效性和安全性的Meta分析

3种蛇毒血凝酶类药物用于腹部手术止血有效性和安全性的网状Meta分析