ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost effectiveness of mono, dual, and triple therapy of antihypertensive drugs: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHypertension is a prevalent global health issue with far-reaching consequences. It impacts millions of individuals worldwide and poses significant risks to overall health. We aimed to explore and compare the cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of single, dual, and triple antihypertensive therapies in the management of blood pressure.
methodThis retrospective observational study evaluated the cost effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy from the inpatient records of hypertensive urgency patients from January 2022 to December 2022. Data was extracted from the medical records including crucial information such as MR number, name, gender, weight, dates of admission and discharge, co-morbidities, therapy type, prescribed drugs and doses, and blood pressure readings. Employing standard costing techniques, the study calculated direct medical costs associated with the patient's stay, medical care, nursing, and medication charges, considering the timeframe of August 2023. Data was analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel. Mann Whitney and Kruskall Walis test was performed for statistical analysis.
resultsOut of 120 patients, the majority were male 55% and between the age group 61-80 years i.e., 45%. The analysis revealed a statistically significant impact on systolic blood pressure across the different therapies. Monotherapy resulted in a higher median systolic BP (140.0 mmHg [IQR 6.27]) compared to dual therapy (136.7 mmHg [IQR 6.7]) and triple therapy (133.3 mmHg [IQR 10.0]), with a significant difference (p = 0.000). In terms of cost-effectiveness, triple therapy demonstrated the lowest average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) for systolic BP control PKR 1803, while dual therapy was the most cost-effective for diastolic BP management with PKR 2438.
conclusionThe study concluded triple therapy as the most cost effective strategy for reducing systolic blood pressure, demonstrating its efficacy in blood pressure management. Conversely, dual therapy proved optimal for controlling diastolic blood pressure. REGISTRATION: IRB # 0126 - 23 Dated: 24 July 2023.
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.