Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension

BACKGROUND: Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties, no comparative randomized studies with cardiovascular event endpoints have been performed for this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of candesartan (Ataca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Granström, Ola, Levin, Lars-Åke, Henriksson, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3493257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23144565
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S35824
_version_ 1782249227424890880
author Granström, Ola
Levin, Lars-Åke
Henriksson, Martin
author_facet Granström, Ola
Levin, Lars-Åke
Henriksson, Martin
author_sort Granström, Ola
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties, no comparative randomized studies with cardiovascular event endpoints have been performed for this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of candesartan (Atacand(®)) versus generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes over a patient’s lifetime. Data from a clinical registry study were used to estimate event rates for cardiovascular complications, such as myocardial infarction and heart failure. Costs and quality of life data were from published sources. Costs were in Swedish kronor and the outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Due to reduced rates of cardiovascular complications, candesartan was associated with a QALY gain and lower health care costs compared with generic losartan (0.053 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4700 Swedish kronor for women; and 0.057 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4250 Swedish kronor for men). This result was robust in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: When modeling costs and health outcomes based on event rates for cardiovascular complications from a real-world registry study, candesartan appears to bring a QALY gain and a reduction in costs compared with generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension in Sweden.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3493257
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34932572012-11-09 Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension Granström, Ola Levin, Lars-Åke Henriksson, Martin Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties, no comparative randomized studies with cardiovascular event endpoints have been performed for this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of candesartan (Atacand(®)) versus generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes over a patient’s lifetime. Data from a clinical registry study were used to estimate event rates for cardiovascular complications, such as myocardial infarction and heart failure. Costs and quality of life data were from published sources. Costs were in Swedish kronor and the outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Due to reduced rates of cardiovascular complications, candesartan was associated with a QALY gain and lower health care costs compared with generic losartan (0.053 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4700 Swedish kronor for women; and 0.057 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4250 Swedish kronor for men). This result was robust in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: When modeling costs and health outcomes based on event rates for cardiovascular complications from a real-world registry study, candesartan appears to bring a QALY gain and a reduction in costs compared with generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension in Sweden. Dove Medical Press 2012-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3493257/ /pubmed/23144565 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S35824 Text en © 2012 Granström et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Granström, Ola
Levin, Lars-Åke
Henriksson, Martin
Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
title Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
title_full Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
title_short Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
title_sort cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3493257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23144565
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S35824
work_keys_str_mv AT granstromola costeffectivenessofcandesartanversuslosartanintheprimarypreventivetreatmentofhypertension
AT levinlarsake costeffectivenessofcandesartanversuslosartanintheprimarypreventivetreatmentofhypertension
AT henrikssonmartin costeffectivenessofcandesartanversuslosartanintheprimarypreventivetreatmentofhypertension