English, Article edition: A Cost-Utility Analysis of Losartan versus Atenolol in the Treatment of Hypertension with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Aslam H. Anis; Huiying Sun; Sonia Singh; ...

User activity

Share to:
 
Bookmark: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/119831
Physical Description
  • article
Language
  • English

Edition details

Title
  • A Cost-Utility Analysis of Losartan versus Atenolol in the Treatment of Hypertension with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy
Author
  • Aslam H. Anis
  • Huiying Sun
  • Sonia Singh
  • John Woolcott
  • Bohdan Nosyk
  • Marc Brisson
Physical Description
  • article
Notes
  • Introduction: The LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) study demonstrated a 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke or death) for patients with hypertension and electrocardiographically diagnosed left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) treated with losartan compared with atenolol. Losartan recipients also had a 25% relative risk reduction for stroke compared with atenolol recipients. Incorporating the results found in the LIFE study into an economic model, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing losartan with atenolol in the treatment of 67-year old patients with hypertension and LVH. Methods: A Markov state transition model, based on published results of the LIFE trial (mean follow-up of 4.8 years), was utilised to extrapolate the outcomes observed in this trial to the patients' lifetime. Utility estimates for the associated health states were obtained from various published sources. Lifetime treatment costs were calculated adopting a societal perspective. Both costs and benefits were discounted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The estimated ICER for losartan versus atenolol was $Can1337 per QALY gained ($Can1_=​_$US0.75, 2002 values). This ICER was robust to extensive sensitivity analysis, demonstrating a 95% probability that the ICER would be <$Can20_000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: From a Canadian societal perspective, losartan appears to be a cost-effective alternative to atenolol in patients with hypertension and LVH. The estimated ICERs, including the sensitivity analyses, were within the range of cost-effectiveness ratios for various currently funded interventions and drugs in developed countries.
  • Atenolol, Cost-utility, Hypertension, Left-ventricular-hypertrophy, Losartan, Stroke
  • RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:24:y:2006:i:4:p:387-400
Language
  • English
Contributed by
OAIster

Get this edition

  • Set up My libraries

    How do I set up "My libraries"?

    In order to set up a list of libraries that you have access to, you must first login or sign up. Then set up a personal list of libraries from your profile page by clicking on your user name at the top right of any screen.

  • All (1)
  • Unknown (1)
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.

User activity


e.g. test cricket, Perth (WA), "Parkes, Henry"

Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes.

Be the first to add a tag for this edition

Be the first to add this to a list

Comments and reviews

What are comments? Add a comment

No user comments or reviews for this version

Add a comment