ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Amlodipine/economics , Antihypertensive Agents/economics , Atenolol/economics , Hydrochlorothiazide/economics , Hypertension/drug therapy , Losartan/economics , Amlodipine/adverse effects , Antihypertensive Agents/adverse effects , Atenolol/adverse effects , Blood Pressure/drug effects , Drug Costs , Drug Therapy, Combination/economics , Enalapril/administration & dosage , Enalapril/economics , Hydrochlorothiazide/adverse effects , Hypertension/classification , Losartan/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Verificar se o tratamento com levosimendan seria mais dispendioso que o usual com dobutamina, uma vez que o preco dos medicamentos não representa a maior despesa no tratamento da descompensacão cardíaca. MÉTODOS: Comparou-se o custo do tratamento de 18 pacientes hospitalizados devido a descompensacão cardíaca, 9 tratados com dobutamina (grupo dobuta) e 9 com levosimendan (grupo levo). Os grupos foram semelhantes quanto à idade, sexo, classe funcional e funcão cardíaca. RESULTADOS: O custo do tratamento foi semelhante para os dois grupos. No grupo levo as despesas com medicamentos foram maiores, mas as relativas ao período de terapia intensiva e do material empregado foram menores. Levo - medicamentos: R$ 5.414,00; materiais: R$ 399,90; diárias hospitalares: R$ 5.061,20; servicos profissionais: R$ 3.241,80; final: R$ 14.117,00. Dobuta - medicamentos: R$ 2.320,10; materiais: R$ 1.665,70; diárias hospitalares: R$ 6.261,90; servicos profissionais: R$ 3.894,30; final: R$ 14.142,00. CONCLUSAO: Apesar do preco mais elevado da droga, o custo global do tratamento foi semelhante para os pacientes tratados com dobutamina ou levosimendan. O paciente tratado com levosimendan permaneceu menos tempo em terapia intensiva.