Cost-effectiveness of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide or metoprolol to treat hypertension in rural community health centers in China.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to compare blood pressure (BP)-lowing effects of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine and metoprolol, and estimate the economic effect of these therapies on hypertension. METHODS: Outpatients (N = 793) 18-70 years of age with stage 2 or severe hypertension (SBP ≥ 160 mmHg and/or DBP ≥ 100 mmHg) were recruited from four randomly selected rural community health centers in Beijing and Jilin. After drug wash out, they were randomly divided into nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group or nitrendipine and metoprolol group. The costs of drug treatment for hypertension were calculated and general estimation, whereas effectiveness was measured as a reduction in SBP and DBP at the end of a 24-week study period. RESULTS: Overall, 623 patients were eligible for the study and after a 24-week follow-up, SBP and DBP were 131.2/82.2 mmHg for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group and 131.4/82.9 mmHg for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group and these were not significantly different (P = 0.7974 SBP and P = 0.1166 DBP). Comparing with nitrendipine and metoprolol, the cost of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was less, and its effectiveness was similar. The cost/effect ratio (US$/mmHg) was 1.4 for SBP and 2.8 for DBP for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group, and 1.9 and 3.8 for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group's SBP and DBP values, respectively. The incremental cost per patient for achieving target BP was 5.1. Adverse events were mild or moderate and there were no differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Treating hypertension with nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was cost-effective than nitrendipine and metoprolol, and these data will allow more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in low-income countries.

Cost-utility analysis of eprosartan compared to enalapril in primary prevention and nitrendipine in secondary prevention in Europe--the HEALTH model.

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. 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--Eprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention"). Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives. RESULTS: Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (Euro 24,036) followed by Belgium (Euro 17,863), the UK (Euro 16,364), Norway (Euro 13,834), Sweden (Euro 11,691) and Spain (Euro 7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (Euro 9136) followed by the UK (Euro 6008), Norway (Euro 1695), Sweden (Euro 907), Spain (Euro -2054) and Belgium (Euro -5767). CONCLUSIONS: Considering a Euro 30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients >or=50 years old and a systolic blood pressure >or=160 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients).

Adjunctive treatment with moxonidine versus nitrendipine for hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic hypertension often accompanies chronic renal failure and can accelerate its progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Adjunctive moxonidine appeared to have benefits versus adjunctive nitrendipine, in a randomised double-blind six-month trial in hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure. To understand the longer term effects and costs of moxonidine, a decision analytic model was developed and a cost-effectiveness analysis performed. METHODS: A Markov model was used to extrapolate results from the trial over three years. All patients started in a non-ESRD state. After each cycle, patients with a glomerular filtration rate below 15 ml/min had progressed to an ESRD state. The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare perspective. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per life-year gained. The percentage of patients progressing to ESRD and cumulative costs were also compared after three years. In the base case analysis, all patients with ESRD received dialysis. RESULTS: The model predicted that after three years, 38.9% (95%CI 31.8-45.8) of patients treated with nitrendipine progressed to ESRD compared to 7.5% (95%CI 3.5-12.7) of patients treated with moxonidine. Treatment with standard antihypertensive therapy and adjunctive moxonidine was predicted to reduce the number of ESRD cases by 81% over three years compared to adjunctive nitrendipine. The cumulative costs per patient were significantly lower in the moxonidine group 9,858 euro (95% CI 5,501-16,174) than in the nitrendipine group 37,472 euro (95% CI 27,957-49,478). The model showed moxonidine to be dominant compared to nitrendipine, increasing life-years lived by 0.044 (95%CI 0.020-0.070) years and at a cost-saving of 27,615 euro (95%CI 16,894-39,583) per patient. Probabilistic analyses confirmed that the moxonidine strategy was dominant over nitrendipine in over 98.9% of cases. The cumulative 3-year costs and LYL continued to favour the moxonidine strategy in all sensitivity analyses performed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with standard antihypertensive therapy and adjunctive moxonidine in hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure was predicted to reduce the number of new ESRD cases over three years compared to adjunctive nitrendipine. The model showed that adjunctive moxonidine could increase life-years lived and provide long term cost savings.