基于真实世界数据,全面评估在眼底病变患者中使用玻璃体内注射抗血管内皮生长因子药物的情况

Cheng-qun Chen, Li-ping Du, Qing Liu, Qing-hua Ren, Zhen-feng Zhu, Gui-fang Sun, Yu-shen Li, Yang Yang, Shu-zhang Du, Yue-dong Qi
{"title":"基于真实世界数据,全面评估在眼底病变患者中使用玻璃体内注射抗血管内皮生长因子药物的情况","authors":"Cheng-qun Chen, Li-ping Du, Qing Liu, Qing-hua Ren, Zhen-feng Zhu, Gui-fang Sun, Yu-shen Li, Yang Yang, Shu-zhang Du, Yue-dong Qi","doi":"10.1101/2024.04.01.24305180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The prevalence of fundus lesion-related diseases is increasing, which ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs have become the drugs of choice for the treatment of fundus lesions diseases. To evaluate the clinical value of three ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of fundus lesions diseases, to guide the rational use of the clinic. Inpatients with fundus lesions who had intravitreal injections of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab during 2020 were studied and six indicators were selected for a comprehensive evaluation. In terms of safety, Aflibercept, Conbercept, and Leizumab experienced adverse effects of elevated Intraocular Pressure (IOP). In terms of effectiveness, Leizumab was strong, that of Aflibercept was stronger and that of Conbercept was weaker. In terms of economic, there was no significant difference in the cost of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab and a significant difference in the total treatment cost and the cost of surgery. In terms of appropriateness, Aflibercept was more suitable than Conbercept, and there was no significant difference between Leizumab and Aflibercept. In terms of accessibility, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab were all accessible to urban residents in Henan Province. For rural people, these are unreachable. In terms of innovation, Aflibercep was the most innovative, followed by Leizumab and finally Conbercept. In terms of effectiveness and accessibility, Leizumab performed best compared to Aflibercept and Conbercept. In terms of accessibility and innovation, Aflibercept performed best compared to Conbercept and Leizumab. In terms of safety and economic, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab performed comparably.","PeriodicalId":501447,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comprehensive evaluation of the use of intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs in patients with fundus lesions based on real-world data\",\"authors\":\"Cheng-qun Chen, Li-ping Du, Qing Liu, Qing-hua Ren, Zhen-feng Zhu, Gui-fang Sun, Yu-shen Li, Yang Yang, Shu-zhang Du, Yue-dong Qi\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.04.01.24305180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The prevalence of fundus lesion-related diseases is increasing, which ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs have become the drugs of choice for the treatment of fundus lesions diseases. To evaluate the clinical value of three ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of fundus lesions diseases, to guide the rational use of the clinic. Inpatients with fundus lesions who had intravitreal injections of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab during 2020 were studied and six indicators were selected for a comprehensive evaluation. In terms of safety, Aflibercept, Conbercept, and Leizumab experienced adverse effects of elevated Intraocular Pressure (IOP). In terms of effectiveness, Leizumab was strong, that of Aflibercept was stronger and that of Conbercept was weaker. In terms of economic, there was no significant difference in the cost of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab and a significant difference in the total treatment cost and the cost of surgery. In terms of appropriateness, Aflibercept was more suitable than Conbercept, and there was no significant difference between Leizumab and Aflibercept. In terms of accessibility, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab were all accessible to urban residents in Henan Province. For rural people, these are unreachable. In terms of innovation, Aflibercep was the most innovative, followed by Leizumab and finally Conbercept. In terms of effectiveness and accessibility, Leizumab performed best compared to Aflibercept and Conbercept. In terms of accessibility and innovation, Aflibercept performed best compared to Conbercept and Leizumab. In terms of safety and economic, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab performed comparably.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.01.24305180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.01.24305180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

眼底病变相关疾病的发病率越来越高,其中眼科抗血管内皮生长因子药物已成为治疗眼底病变疾病的首选药物。目的 评价三种眼科抗血管内皮生长因子药物在治疗眼底病变疾病中的临床价值,指导临床合理用药。研究对象为2020年期间接受过Aflibercept、Conbercept和Leizumab玻璃体内注射的眼底病变住院患者,选取6项指标进行综合评价。在安全性方面,Aflibercept、Conbercept和Leizumab出现了眼压升高的不良反应。在有效性方面,Leizumab 较强,Aflibercept 较强,Conbercept 较弱。在经济效益方面,阿弗利百普、康柏西普和来珠单抗的成本没有显著差异,而治疗总成本和手术成本则有显著差异。在适宜性方面,Aflibercept 比 Conbercept 更为适宜,Leizumab 和 Aflibercept 之间没有明显差异。在可及性方面,Aflibercept、Conbercept 和 Leizumab 对河南省城市居民来说都是可及的。对于农村居民来说,这些都是可望而不可及的。在创新性方面,阿弗利贝西普最具创新性,其次是来珠单抗,最后是康柏西普。在有效性和可及性方面,与阿弗利贝西普和康柏西普相比,利珠单抗表现最佳。在可及性和创新性方面,阿弗利百普与康柏西普和来珠单抗相比表现最佳。在安全性和经济性方面,Aflibercept、Conbercept 和 Leizumab 的表现相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comprehensive evaluation of the use of intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs in patients with fundus lesions based on real-world data
The prevalence of fundus lesion-related diseases is increasing, which ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs have become the drugs of choice for the treatment of fundus lesions diseases. To evaluate the clinical value of three ophthalmic anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of fundus lesions diseases, to guide the rational use of the clinic. Inpatients with fundus lesions who had intravitreal injections of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab during 2020 were studied and six indicators were selected for a comprehensive evaluation. In terms of safety, Aflibercept, Conbercept, and Leizumab experienced adverse effects of elevated Intraocular Pressure (IOP). In terms of effectiveness, Leizumab was strong, that of Aflibercept was stronger and that of Conbercept was weaker. In terms of economic, there was no significant difference in the cost of Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab and a significant difference in the total treatment cost and the cost of surgery. In terms of appropriateness, Aflibercept was more suitable than Conbercept, and there was no significant difference between Leizumab and Aflibercept. In terms of accessibility, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab were all accessible to urban residents in Henan Province. For rural people, these are unreachable. In terms of innovation, Aflibercep was the most innovative, followed by Leizumab and finally Conbercept. In terms of effectiveness and accessibility, Leizumab performed best compared to Aflibercept and Conbercept. In terms of accessibility and innovation, Aflibercept performed best compared to Conbercept and Leizumab. In terms of safety and economic, Aflibercept, Conbercept and Leizumab performed comparably.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信