Cost-effectiveness of amlodipine compared with valsartan in preventing stroke and myocardial infarction among hypertensive patients in Taiwan

被引:9
|
作者
Chan, Lung [1 ]
Chen, Chen-Huan [2 ]
Hwang, Juey-Jen [3 ]
Yeh, San-Jou [4 ]
Shyu, Kou-Gi [5 ]
Lin, Ruey-Tay [6 ]
Li, Yi-Heng [7 ]
Liu, Larry Z. [8 ]
Li, Jim Z. [9 ]
Shau, Wen-Yi [10 ]
Weng, Te-Chang [10 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Med Univ, Sch Med, Shuang Ho Hosp, Dept Neurol,Coll Med, New Taipei, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Fac Med, Dept Internal Med, Taipei, Taiwan
[3] Natl Taiwan Univ Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Div Cardiol, Taipei, Taiwan
[4] Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Div Cardiol, Taoyuan, Taiwan
[5] Shin Kong Wu Ho Su Mem Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Div Cardiol, Taipei, Taiwan
[6] Kaohsiung Med Univ Hosp, Dept Neurol, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
[7] Natl Cheng Kung Univ Hosp, Div Cardiol, Dept Internal Med, 138 Sheng Li Rd, Tainan 704, Taiwan
[8] Pfizer Inc, New York, NY USA
[9] Pfizer Inc, San Diego, CA USA
[10] Pfizer Inc, New Taipei, Taiwan
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE | 2016年 / 9卷
关键词
cost-effectiveness; pharmacoeconomic; Markov model; CCB; ARB;
D O I
10.2147/IJGM.S102095
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Hypertension is a major risk factor for strokes and myocardial infarction (MI). Given its effectiveness and safety profile, the calcium channel blocker amlodipine is among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive drugs. This analysis was conducted to determine the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the use of amlodipine and valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, in preventing stroke and MI in Taiwanese hypertensive patients. A state transition (Markov) model was developed to compare the 5-year costs and QALYs for amlodipine and valsartan. Effectiveness data were based on the NAGOYA HEART Study, local studies, and a published meta-analysis. Utility data and costs of MI and stroke were retrieved from the published literature. Medical costs were based on the literature and inflated to 2011 prices; drug costs were based on National Health Insurance prices in 2014. A 3% discount rate was used for costs and QALYs and a third-party payer perspective adopted. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Compared with valsartan, amlodipine was associated with cost savings of New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) 2,251 per patient per year: costs were NTD 4,296 and NTD 6,547 per patient per year for amlodipine and valsartan users, respectively. Fewer cardiovascular events were reported in patients receiving amlodipine versus valsartan (342 vs 413 per 10,000 patients over 5 years, respectively). Amlodipine had a net gain of 58 QALYs versus valsartan per 10,000 patients over 5 years. Sensitivity analyses showed that the discount rate and cohort age had a larger effect on total cost and cost difference than on QALYs. However, amlodipine results were more favorable than valsartan irrespective of discount rate or cohort age. When administered to Taiwanese patients for hypertension control, amlodipine was associated with lower cost and more QALYs compared with valsartan due to a lower risk of stroke and MI events.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 182
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Anticoagulants for Ischemic Stroke Prophylaxis Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients
    Shah, Anuj
    Shewale, Anand
    Hayes, Corey J.
    Martin, Bradley C.
    STROKE, 2016, 47 (06) : 1555 - U370
  • [22] Polypill for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction: Cost-effectiveness analysis in the German setting
    Barth C.
    Diekmann S.
    Neusser S.
    Bramlage P.
    Wasem J.
    Neumann A.
    Der Kardiologe, 2017, 11 (6): : 473 - 479
  • [23] Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction
    Febrinasari, Ratih P.
    Putra, Stefanus E.
    Hafizhan, Muhammad
    Probandari, Ari N.
    JOURNAL OF PHARMACY PRACTICE, 2023, 36 (04) : 915 - 924
  • [24] Methodology and results of cost-effectiveness of LDL-C lowering with evolocumab in patients with acute myocardial infarction in China
    Wan, Yuansheng
    Liu, Jinyu
    Zhan, Xiaolian
    Zhang, Yu
    You, Ruxu
    COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION, 2023, 21 (01)
  • [25] Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation in Sweden
    Davidson, Thomas
    Husberg, Magnus
    Janzon, Magnus
    Oldgren, Jonas
    Levin, Lars-Ake
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2013, 34 (03) : 177 - 183
  • [26] Methodology and results of cost-effectiveness of LDL-C lowering with evolocumab in patients with acute myocardial infarction in China
    Yuansheng Wan
    Jinyu Liu
    Xiaolian Zhan
    Yu Zhang
    Ruxu You
    Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 21
  • [27] Integrating cost-effectiveness evidence into clinical practice guidelines in Australia for acute myocardial infarction
    Antioch K.M.
    Jennings G.
    Botti M.
    Chapman R.
    Wulfsohn V.
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2002, 3 (1) : 26 - 39
  • [28] Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing pharmacological reperfusion: A Canadian analysis of the Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (ExTRACT-TIMI) 25 trial
    Welsh, Robert C.
    Sauriol, Luc
    Zhang, Zugui
    Kolm, Paul
    Weintraub, William S.
    Theroux, Pierre
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2009, 25 (12) : E399 - E405
  • [29] Cost-effectiveness of harm reduction in preventing hepatitis C among injection drug users
    Pollack, HA
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2001, 21 (05) : 357 - 367
  • [30] Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction
    Liang, Lin
    Wu, David Bin-Chia
    Aziz, Mohamed Ismail Abdul
    Wong, Raymond
    Sim, David
    Leong, Kui Toh Gerard
    Wei, Yong Quek
    Tan, Doreen
    Ng, Kwong
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ECONOMICS, 2018, 21 (02) : 174 - 181