Chowdhury Enayet K, Ademi Zanfina, Moss John R, Wing Lindon M H, Reid Christopher M
From the Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics (EKC, ZA, CMR), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ZA), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; School of Population Health (JM), The University of Adelaide; and Department of Clinical Pharmacology (LMHW), School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Mar;94(9):e590. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000590.
The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-based treatment compared with thiazide diuretic-based treatment for hypertension in elderly Australians considering diabetes as an outcome along with cardiovascular outcomes from the Australian government's perspective.We used a cost-utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Data on cardiovascular events and new onset of diabetes were used from the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study, a randomized clinical trial comparing diuretic-based (hydrochlorothiazide) versus ACEI-based (enalapril) treatment in 6083 elderly (age ≥65 years) hypertensive patients over a median 4.1-year period. For this economic analysis, the total study population was stratified into 2 groups. Group A was restricted to participants diabetes free at baseline (n = 5642); group B was restricted to participants with preexisting diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2) at baseline (n = 441). Data on utility scores for different events were used from available published literatures; whereas, treatment and adverse event management costs were calculated from direct health care costs available from Australian government reimbursement data. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 5% per annum. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around utilities and cost data.After a treatment period of 5 years, for group A, the ICER was Australian dollars (AUD) 27,698 (&OV0556; 18,004; AUD 1-&OV0556; 0.65) per QALY gained comparing ACEI-based treatment with diuretic-based treatment (sensitive to the utility value for new-onset diabetes). In group B, ACEI-based treatment was a dominant strategy (both more effective and cost-saving). On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the ICERs per QALY gained were always below AUD 50,000 for group B; whereas for group A, the probability of being below AUD 50,000 was 85%.Although the dispensed price of diuretic-based treatment of hypertension in the elderly is lower, upon considering the potential enhanced likelihood of the development of diabetes in addition to the costs of treating cardiovascular disease, ACEI-based treatment may be a more cost-effective strategy in this population.
本研究的目的是从澳大利亚政府的角度出发,将以血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)为基础的治疗与以噻嗪类利尿剂为基础的治疗相比较,探讨其对老年澳大利亚高血压患者的成本效益,同时将糖尿病作为一种结局,并考虑心血管结局。我们采用成本效用分析来估计每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比(ICER)。心血管事件和糖尿病新发的数据来自第二次澳大利亚全国血压研究,这是一项随机临床试验,在6083名年龄≥65岁的老年高血压患者中比较了以利尿剂(氢氯噻嗪)为基础的治疗与以ACEI(依那普利)为基础的治疗,中位随访期为4.1年。对于这项经济分析,将研究总人群分为两组。A组仅限于基线时无糖尿病的参与者(n = 5642);B组仅限于基线时患有糖尿病(1型或2型)的参与者(n = 441)。不同事件的效用评分数据来自已发表的文献;而治疗和不良事件管理成本则根据澳大利亚政府报销数据中的直接医疗保健成本计算得出。成本和QALY按每年5%进行贴现。进行了单向和概率敏感性分析,以评估效用和成本数据的不确定性。在5年的治疗期后,对于A组,将以ACEI为基础的治疗与以利尿剂为基础的治疗相比较,每获得一个QALY的ICER为27,698澳元(18,004欧元;1澳元兑0.65欧元)(对糖尿病新发的效用值敏感)。在B组中,以ACEI为基础的治疗是一种优势策略(更有效且节省成本)。在概率敏感性分析中,B组每获得一个QALY的ICER始终低于50,000澳元;而对于A组,低于50,000澳元的概率为85%。尽管老年高血压患者以利尿剂为基础的治疗配药价格较低,但考虑到除心血管疾病治疗成本外糖尿病发生可能性增加的潜在因素,以ACEI为基础的治疗在该人群中可能是一种更具成本效益的策略。