BACKGROUND:End-stage renal disease (ESRD)-related health care costs are substantial. Improving clinical outcomes in patients at risk of progression to ESRD could lead to considerable health care savings. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of irbesartan compared with placebo or amlodipine in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and overt nephropathy. METHODS: Three treatments for hypertension patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy were assessed: (1) irbesartan, (2) amlodipine, and (3) placebo. A Markov model was developed based on primary data from the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial and the United States Renal Data System. Projected survival and costs were compared for each treatment at 3-, 10-, and 25-year time horizons. Different assumptions of treatment benefits and costs were tested with use of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At 10 and 25 years, the model projected irbesartan to be both the least costly and most effective (ie, demonstrating a survival advantage) strategy. At 25
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD)-related health care costs are substantial. Improving clinical outcomes in patients at risk of progression to ESRD could lead to considerable health care savings. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of irbesartan compared with placebo or amlodipine in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and overt nephropathy. METHODS: Three treatments for hypertensionpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy were assessed: (1) irbesartan, (2) amlodipine, and (3) placebo. A Markov model was developed based on primary data from the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial and the United States Renal Data System. Projected survival and costs were compared for each treatment at 3-, 10-, and 25-year time horizons. Different assumptions of treatment benefits and costs were tested with use of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At 10 and 25 years, the model projected irbesartan to be both the least costly and most effective (ie, demonstrating a survival advantage) strategy. At 25
Authors: Joseph Menzin; Lisa M Lines; Daniel E Weiner; Peter J Neumann; Christine Nichols; Lauren Rodriguez; Irene Agodoa; Tracy Mayne Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Cornelis Boersma; Jarir Atthobari; Ron T Gansevoort; Lolkje T W de Jong-Van den Berg; Paul E de Jong; Dick de Zeeuw; Lieven J P Annemans; Maarten J Postma Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: George W Carides; Shahnaz Shahinfar; Erik J Dasbach; William F Keane; William C Gerth; Charles M Alexander; William H Herman; Barry M Brenner Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sylvia M C Vijgen; Mirjam Hoogendoorn; Caroline A Baan; G Ardine de Wit; Wien Limburg; Talitha L Feenstra Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.981