News from ESH
- PDF / 150,805 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 623.591 x 841.847 pts Page_size
- 57 Downloads / 201 Views
1
1. Brodszky V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of indapamide monotherapy in stroke prevention in Hungary Journal of Hypertension 25 (Suppl. 2): 222, Jun 2007. 2. Lindgren P, et al. An amlodipine-based regimen is cost-effective compared to an atenolol-based regimen: results from the anglo-scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial Journal of Hypertension 25 (Suppl. 2): 137, Jun 2007. 801069743
Indapamide good value in stroke prevention Indapamide is cost effective for the prevention of stroke, report researchers from Hungary.1 The researchers evaluated the costs and outcomes associated with indapamide among 5665 poststroke patients; cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over a 2-year horizon. Over a follow-up period of 2 years, the incidence of stroke was significantly lower among indapamide recipients than among placebo recipients (OR 0.712). The number-needed-to-treat with indapamide for 2 years to prevent one stroke event was 48 patients. Average inpatient yearly costs were evaluated for 3535 patients using data obtained from the National Health Insurance Fund Administration database [see table].* Average yearly inpatient costs for stroke patients in Hungary Age (years)
Before stroke: 25-44 45-64 ≥ 65 1 year poststroke: 25-44 45-64 ≥ 65 2 years poststroke: 25-44 45-64 ≥ 65
Average inpatient yearly costs (€/ patient/year) Males
Females
98 205 265
126 236 286
1669 1686 1376
1440 1447 1235
214 329 503
377 416 475
The yearly cost of indapamide treatment was €70.4 per patient/year; the cost to prevent one stroke event was €6738. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) associated with indapamide was €5405 per prevented stroke, compared with no treatment.
Amlodipine favoured for hypertension Amlodipine is cost effective, compared with atenolol, for the treatment of patients with hypertension, according to researchers from Sweden and the UK.2 The researchers developed a Markov model to assess the costs and outcomes associated with amlodipine versus atenolol for the treatment of hypertensive patients in the UK, over a lifetime horizon. The total cost per patient would be higher among amlodipine recipients than among atenolol recipients (£3662 vs £2411);** the per-patient drug costs associated with each treatment would be £2116 and £728, respectively. In addition, the quality-adjusted survival associated with amlodipine and atenolol would be 8.84 and 8.75 years, respectively. The ICER associated with amlodipine would be £14 900 per QALY gained, compared with atenolol. * Costs included active and chronic hospital treatment costs of patients, 12 months prior to stroke and 24 months poststroke. ** Costs included those associated with drugs and events.
1173-5503/10/0533-0001/$14.95 Adis © 2010 Springer International Publishing AG. All rights reserved
PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News 28 Jul 2007 No. 533
Data Loading...
