Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29153114›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017

Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Antihypertensive Medicines: A Systematic Review.

Chanhyun Park, Guijing Wang, Jefferey M Durthaler, Jing Fang

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
29.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019).Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019
    Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Cost effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs and treatment guidelines.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    Article
  19. Projecting the long-term benefits of single pill combination therapy for patients with hypertension in five countries.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Chanhyun ParkDivision for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: muz6@cdc.gov.
Guijing WangDivision for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jefferey M DurthalerDivision for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jing FangDivision for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999OSELS CDC HHS U36 OE000005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextHypertension affects one third of the U.S. adult population. Although cost-effectiveness analyses of antihypertensive medicines have been published, a comprehensive systematic review across medicine classes is not available. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Health Technology Assessment were searched to identify original cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1990 through August 2016. Results were summarized by medicine class: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), thiazide-type diuretics, β-blockers, and others. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were adjusted to 2015 U.S. dollars. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Among 76 studies reviewed, 14 compared medicines with no treatment, 16 compared medicines with conventional therapy, 29 compared between medicine classes, 13 compared within medicine class, and 11 compared combination therapies. All antihypertensives were cost effective compared with no treatment (ICER/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]=dominant-$19,945). ARBs were more cost effective than CCBs (ICER/QALY=dominant-$13,016) in nine comparisons, whereas CCBs were more cost effective than ARBs (ICER/QALY=dominant) in two comparisons. ARBs were more cost effective than ACEIs (ICER/QALY=dominant-$34,244) and β-blockers (ICER/QALY=$1,498-$18,137) in all eight comparisons.

conclusionsAll antihypertensives were cost effective compared with no treatment. ARBs appeared to be more cost effective than CCBs, ACEIs, and β-blockers. However, these latter findings should be interpreted with caution because these findings are not robust due to the substantial variability across the studies, including study settings and analytic models, changes in the cost of generic medicines, and publication bias.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsCalcium Channel BlockersDrugs, GenericHumansHypertensionQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSodium Chloride Symporter InhibitorsAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsCalcium Channel BlockersDrugs, GenericSodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID29153114
PMCPMC5836308
OpenAlexW2770718216

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.