Cost-Utility Analysis of Eprosartan Compared to Enalapril in Primary Prevention and Nitrendipine in Secondary Prevention in Europe¡ªThe HEALTH Model

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Bjö ; rn Schwander ; BSc^a ; Birgit Gradl ; MSc^b ; ^{birgit.gradl@solvay.com} ; York Zö ; llner ; PhD^b ; Peter Lindgren ; PhD^c ; Hans-Christoph Diener ; MD^d ; Stephan Lü ; ders ; MD^e ; Joachim Schrader ; MD^e ; Fernando Antoñ ; anzas Villar ; PhD^f ; Wolfgang Greiner ; PhD^g ; Bengt Jö ; nsson ; PhD^h
• 关键词：cost-utility ; eprosartan ; enalapril ; nitrendipine
• 刊名：Value in Health
• 出版年：2009
• 出版时间：September 2009
• 年：2009
• 卷：12
• 期：6
• 页码：857-871
• 全文大小：367 K

文摘

| ReferencesReferences

ass=""h3"">ABSTRACT

ass=""h4"">Objective

To investigate the cost-utility of eprosartan versus enalapril (primary prevention) and versus nitrendipine (secondary prevention) on the basis of head-to-head evidence from randomized controlled trials.

ass=""h4"">Methods

The HEALTH model (Health Economic Assessment of Life with Teveten? for Hypertension) is an object-oriented probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model. It combines a Framingham-based risk calculation with a systolic blood pressure approach to estimate the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events based on recent meta-analyses. In secondary prevention, an additional risk reduction is modeled for eprosartan according to the results of the MOSES study (¡°Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke¡ªEprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention?. Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives.

ass=""h4"">Results

Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (?4,036) followed by Belgium (?7,863), the UK (?6,364), Norway (?13,834), Sweden (?11,691) and Spain (?7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (?136) followed by the UK (?008), Norway (?695), Sweden (?07), Spain (€?2054) and Belgium (€?5767).

ass=""h4"">Conclusions

Considering a ?0,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients ?0 years old and a systolic blood pressure ?60 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients).