Szucs Thomas D, Burnier Michel, Erne Paul
Institute of Social- and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Gloriastrasse 18a, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2004 Sep;18(5):391-7. doi: 10.1007/s10557-005-5064-x.
To determine the economic benefit of losartan versus atenolol in patients with essential hypertension from the perspective of the Swiss healthcare system.
The cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertension was analyzed by applying the results of the LIFE study to the Swiss healthcare system using a decision analysis framework. The cost-effectiveness shows the losartan cohort to provide an additional life expectancy of 0.05 years per patient compared to the atenolol cohort, over a mean follow-up period of 4.8 years. Losartan therapy in hypertensive patients produced net cost savings of CHF 24 per patient and per 4.8 years compared to atenolol from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. This result was robust after varying costs of medication, stroke, myocardial infarction and life expectancy.
The use of a losartan-based regimen in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy in Switzerland is net cost-saving compared with a atenolol-based regimen.
从瑞士医疗保健系统的角度确定氯沙坦与阿替洛尔治疗原发性高血压患者的经济效益。
采用决策分析框架，将LIFE研究的结果应用于瑞士医疗保健系统，分析氯沙坦与阿替洛尔治疗高血压的成本效益。成本效益分析显示，在平均4.8年的随访期内，与阿替洛尔组相比，氯沙坦组每位患者的预期寿命增加0.05年。从瑞士医疗保健系统的角度来看，与阿替洛尔相比，高血压患者使用氯沙坦治疗每4.8年每位患者可节省24瑞士法郎的净成本。在改变药物成本、中风、心肌梗死和预期寿命后，这一结果依然稳健。
在瑞士，对于左心室肥厚的高血压患者，使用基于氯沙坦的治疗方案与基于阿替洛尔的治疗方案相比可节省净成本。
