Li Shunping, Liu Xiaohan, Li Lanting
School of Health Care Management, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, People's Republic of China.
NHC Key Laboratory of Health Economics and Policy Research, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, People's Republic of China.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2020 Feb 12;12:107-114. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S231210. eCollection 2020.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: As the first generation of anti-hypertensive drug independently developed by China, Compound Reserpine and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablet (CRH) has been widely used in China for more than 40 years. However, limited studies are available for the performance of CRH for the treatment of hypertension in real-world setting in China. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and treatment costs between CRH and three other anti-hypertensive agents that include, Triprolidine Hydrochloride (TH: Diovan), Amlodipine Besylate Tablet (ABT: Norvasc), and Nifedipine Tablets (NT: Procardin) in real-world clinical practice.
This was a multicentre, retrospective study conducted from May 2011 to May 2016 at four tertiary hospitals in China. Data from patients' electronic medical records (EMR) were retrieved and analysed. A retrospective propensity score-matched analysis was used for three pairs of comparisons. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate on the 10th and 20th days after treatment were compared. The overall cost of treatment was analysed across groups.
In three pairs of comparison, the patients who received CRH treatment obtained better blood pressure control at both day 10 and day 20. In addition, the patients who received CRH had lower total treatment costs compared with the other three anti-hypertensive drugs. Influential factor analysis showed that CRH is associated with a higher probability of BP control compared with the other three monotherapies in real-world clinical practice.
The patients received CRH showed a higher overall BP control rate than the other three commonly prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs, which indicates that CRH has a better benefit in BP control for hypertensive patients. Also, the total cost for hypertension treatment is lower in CRH patients compared with the other three comparator drugs. These findings suggest that CRH could be an effective and cost-effective option for hypertensive patients.
背景/目的：作为我国自主研发的第一代抗高血压药物，复方利血平氨苯蝶啶片（CRH）在中国已广泛应用40多年。然而，关于CRH在中国真实世界中治疗高血压的疗效研究有限。本研究旨在评估CRH与其他三种抗高血压药物，即盐酸曲普利啶（TH：代文）、苯磺酸氨氯地平片（ABT：络活喜）和硝苯地平片（NT：心痛定）在真实世界临床实践中的比较临床疗效和治疗费用。
这是一项多中心回顾性研究，于2011年5月至2016年5月在中国的四家三级医院进行。检索并分析了患者电子病历（EMR）中的数据。采用回顾性倾向评分匹配分析进行三对比较。比较治疗后第10天和第20天的收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）和总体血压（BP）控制率。分析各治疗组的总体治疗费用。
在三对比较中，接受CRH治疗的患者在第10天和第20天的血压控制情况更好。此外，与其他三种抗高血压药物相比，接受CRH治疗的患者总治疗费用更低。影响因素分析表明，在真实世界临床实践中，与其他三种单一疗法相比，CRH与更高的血压控制概率相关。
接受CRH治疗的患者总体血压控制率高于其他三种常用抗高血压药物，这表明CRH在控制高血压患者血压方面具有更好的疗效。此外，与其他三种对照药物相比，CRH治疗高血压的总费用更低。这些研究结果表明，CRH可能是高血压患者一种有效且具有成本效益的选择。
