Gabriel S Tajeu1, Stephen Mennemeyer, Nir Menachemi, Robert Weech-Maldonado, Meredith Kilgore. 1. Departments of *Epidemiology †Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL ‡Department of Health Policy and Management, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN §Department of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive medication decreases risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in adults with hypertension. Although black adults have higher prevalence of hypertension and worse CVD outcomes compared with whites, limited attention has been given to the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for blacks. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive medication treatment versus no-treatment in white and black adults. RESEARCH DESIGN: We constructed a State Transition Model to assess the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with either antihypertensive medication treatment or no-treatment using data from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study and published literature. CVD events and health states considered in the model included stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease. SUBJECTS: White and black adults with hypertension in the United States, 45 years of age and above. MEASURES: Yearly risk of CVD was determined using REGARDS data and published literature. Antihypertensive medication costs were determined using Medicare claims. Event and health state costs were estimated from published literature. All costs were adjusted to 2012 US dollars. Effectiveness was assessed using QALYs. RESULTS: Antihypertensive medication treatment was cost-saving and increased QALYs compared with no-treatment for white men ($7387; 1.14 QALYs), white women ($7796; 0.89 QALYs), black men ($8400; 1.66 QALYs), and black women ($10,249; 1.79 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive medication treatment is cost-saving and increases QALYs for all groups considered in the model, particularly among black adults.
BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive medication decreases risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in adults with hypertension. Although black adults have higher prevalence of hypertension and worse CVD outcomes compared with whites, limited attention has been given to the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for blacks. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive medication treatment versus no-treatment in white and black adults. RESEARCH DESIGN: We constructed a State Transition Model to assess the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with either antihypertensive medication treatment or no-treatment using data from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study and published literature. CVD events and health states considered in the model included stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease. SUBJECTS: White and black adults with hypertension in the United States, 45 years of age and above. MEASURES: Yearly risk of CVD was determined using REGARDS data and published literature. Antihypertensive medication costs were determined using Medicare claims. Event and health state costs were estimated from published literature. All costs were adjusted to 2012 US dollars. Effectiveness was assessed using QALYs. RESULTS: Antihypertensive medication treatment was cost-saving and increased QALYs compared with no-treatment for white men ($7387; 1.14 QALYs), white women ($7796; 0.89 QALYs), black men ($8400; 1.66 QALYs), and black women ($10,249; 1.79 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive medication treatment is cost-saving and increases QALYs for all groups considered in the model, particularly among black adults.
Authors: Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Chris McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Ron Akehurst; Martin Buxton; John Brazier; Tony O'Hagan Journal: Health Econ Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Mary Cushman; Leavonne Pulley; Camilo R Gomez; Rodney C Go; Ronald J Prineas; Andra Graham; Claudia S Moy; George Howard Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2005-06-29 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Thomas J Hoerger; John S Wittenborn; Joel E Segel; Nilka R Burrows; Kumiko Imai; Paul Eggers; Meda E Pavkov; Regina Jordan; Susan M Hailpern; Anton C Schoolwerth; Desmond E Williams Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Shannon L Gillespie; Cindy M Anderson; Songzhu Zhao; Yubo Tan; David Kline; Guy Brock; James Odei; Emily O'Brien; Mario Sims; Sophie A Lazarus; Darryl B Hood; Karen Patricia Williams; Joshua J Joseph Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.905