Literature DB >> 16357874

Cost-effectiveness of losartan-based therapy in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: a UK-based economic evaluation of the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study.

G McInnes1, T A Burke, G Carides.   

Abstract

The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrated the clinical benefit of losartan-based therapy in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), mainly due to a highly significant 25% reduction in the relative risk of stroke compared with an atenolol-based regimen, for a similar reduction in blood pressure. The aim of this economic evaluation was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol from a UK national health system perspective. Quality-adjusted survival and direct medical costs were modelled beyond the trial using the within-trial incidence of stroke. Survival with stroke, study medication use and quality of life by stroke status were taken directly from the LIFE trial. The LIFE data were supplemented with UK data on lifetime direct medical costs of stroke and life expectancy in individuals without stroke. No additional stroke events or use of study treatment were assumed beyond the trial. Costs and benefits were discounted using current UK Treasury rates. In the base-case analysis, the reduction in stroke-related costs (by 968 sterling pound) offset 86% of the increase in study medication costs (1128 sterling pound) among losartan-treated patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for losartan versus atenolol in hypertensive patients with LVH was 2130 sterling pound per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (3195 Euro/QALY), and this increased to 11,352 sterling pound per QALY gained (16,450 Euro/QALY) when the costs of stroke beyond the first 5 years were excluded. Thus, the clinical benefit of losartan was achieved at a cost well within reported thresholds for cost-effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16357874     DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  6 in total

Review 1.  Estimating drug costs in economic evaluations in Ireland and the UK: an analysis of practice and research recommendations.

Authors:  Dyfrig A Hughes; Lesley Tilson; Michael Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Candesartan cilexetil: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in chronic heart failure and hypertension.

Authors:  Greg L Plosker; Susan J Keam
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Economic evaluation of irbesartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension in Greece.

Authors:  Nikos Maniadakis; Mattias Ekman; Vasilios Fragoulakis; Vasiliki Papagiannopoulou; John Yfantopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-04-22

Review 4.  Economic benefits of treating high-risk hypertension with angiotensin II receptor antagonists (blockers).

Authors:  Antonio Coca
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.859

5.  Controlling hypertension immediately post stroke: a cost utility analysis of a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Edward Cf Wilson; Gary A Ford; Tom Robinson; Amit Mistri; Carol Jagger; John F Potter
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2010-03-23

6.  Cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment in patients 80 years of age or older in Switzerland: an analysis of the HYVET study from a Swiss perspective.

Authors:  T D Szucs; B Waeber; Y Tomonaga
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 3.012

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.