ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021
Cost effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs and treatment guidelines.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Variation in Hydrochlorothiazide Response-Related Genes Among Hypertensive Individuals in Soweto, South Africa.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- A cost-effectiveness evaluation of a high-sensitivity troponin I guided voluntary cardiovascular risk assessment program for asymptomatic women in Croatia.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArterial hypertension (AH) is associated with a high economic burden for the individual patient and for society in general. The study evaluates antihypertensives and their cost-effectiveness, comparing diuretics (D), beta-blockers (B), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-II receptor blockers (A) and calcium channel blockers (C) with no intervention (NI).
methodsThe study included five health states in a Markov model. Cost values included average cost of the drugs used, treatment in hospital and treatment in general practice (collected from Croatian Health Insurance Fund). The study was conducted separately for 65-year old men and women, with an initial probability of cardiovascular death risk of 2% and heart failure risk of 1%. The results were presented in terms of increase in QALYs and associated financial savings or costs in euros (€).
resultsResults for men (compared with NI): treatment with D resulted in a QALY increase of 0.76 and €886 in savings, treatment with C in an increase of 0.74 QALYs and €767 in savings, treatment with A in an increase of 0.69 QALYs and €834 in savings, treatment with B resulted in an increase of 0.40 QALYs, but with an additional cost of €41. Results for women (compared with NI): treatment with D resulted in an increase of 0.93 QALYs and €987 in savings, treatment with C in an increase of 0.89 QALYs and savings of €855, treatment with A in an increase of 0.86 QALYs and savings of €991, treatment with B in an increase of 0.48 QALYs, but with an additional cost of €148.
conclusionsTreatment of AH with D, C and A is cost effective compared with the no-intervention scenario. Diuretics are the most cost-effective first-line treatment. The scenario with beta-blockers resulted in additional QALY when compared with no intervention, but also additional costs; therefore, based on our results, this therapy would not be recommended as first-line treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.