Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of drug treatment for young and middle-aged stage 1 hypertensive patients with high risk

BACKGROUND: Drug treatment was recommended for stage 1 hypertensive patients (blood pressure of 130-139 / 80-89 millimetres of mercury (mmHg)) with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2018 Chinese guidelines and 2021 World Health Organization...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Yan-Feng, Deng, Hua, Wang, Guo-Dong, Chen, Shuohua, Xing, Aijun, Wang, Yanxiu, Zhao, Haiyan, Gao, Jingli, Wu, Shouling
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Society of Global Health 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37997845
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.04147
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Drug treatment was recommended for stage 1 hypertensive patients (blood pressure of 130-139 / 80-89 millimetres of mercury (mmHg)) with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2018 Chinese guidelines and 2021 World Health Organization guidelines, but not in other guidelines. However, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment among young and middle-aged patients remains scarce. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment vs. non-drug treatment for stage 1 hypertensive patients aged <60 years with high CVD risk. METHODS: A microsimulation model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for drug treatment from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities were estimated from the Kailuan study with a sample size of 34 093 patients aged <60 years with high CVD risk. Costs and health utilities were obtained from the Kailuan study, national statistics reports and published literature. RESULTS: Over a 15-year time horizon, the model predicted that drug treatment generated QALY of 9.36 and was associated with expected costs of 3735 US dollars ($) compared with 9.07 and $3923 produced by non-drug treatment among stage 1 hypertensive patients, resulting in a cost-saving for drug treatment. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10439/QALY (one gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2020), drug treatment had a 99.99% probability of being cost-effective for 10 000 samples of probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analyses by different values of transition probability, cost, utility and discount rate did not appreciably change the results. Shortening the time horizon to the average follow-up period of eight years resulted in ICER of $189/QALY for drug treatment (<1 × GDP/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that drug treatment was a dominant strategy for stage 1 hypertensive patients aged <60 years with high CVD risk in China, which may provide evidence for policymakers and clinicians when weighing the pros and cons of drug treatment for young and middle-aged stage 1 hypertensive patients.