Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Antihypertensive Medicines: A Systematic Review
  • Published Date:

    Dec 2017

  • Source:
    Am J Prev Med. 53(6 Suppl 2):S131-S142.
Filetype[PDF-742.19 KB]

  • Alternative Title:
    Am J Prev Med
  • Description:
    Context Hypertension affects one third of the U.S. adult population. Although cost-effectiveness analyses of antihypertensive medicines have been published, a comprehensive systematic review across medicine classes is not available. Evidence acquisition PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Health Technology Assessment were searched to identify original cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1990 through August 2016. Results were summarized by medicine class: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), thiazide-type diuretics, β-blockers, and others. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were adjusted to 2015 U.S. dollars. Evidence synthesis Among 76 studies reviewed, 14 compared medicines with no treatment, 16 compared medicines with conventional therapy, 29 compared between medicine classes, 13 compared within medicine class, and 11 compared combination therapies. All antihypertensives were cost effective compared with no treatment (ICER/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]=dominant–$19,945). ARBs were more cost effective than CCBs (ICER/QALY=dominant–$13,016) in nine comparisons, whereas CCBs were more cost effective than ARBs (ICER/QALY=dominant) in two comparisons. ARBs were more cost effective than ACEIs (ICER/QALY=dominant–$34,244) and β-blockers (ICER/QALY=$1,498–$18,137) in all eight comparisons. Conclusions All antihypertensives were cost effective compared with no treatment. ARBs appeared to be more cost effective than CCBs, ACEIs, and β-blockers. However, these latter findings should be interpreted with caution because these findings are not robust due to the substantial variability across the studies, including study settings and analytic models, changes in the cost of generic medicines, and publication bias.
  • Subject:
  • Pubmed ID:
  • Pubmed Central ID:
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:
No Related Documents.

You May Also Like: