首页> 外文期刊>Hypertension research: Official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension >Cost-effectiveness analysis: controlled-release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-Combi) study.
【24h】

Cost-effectiveness analysis: controlled-release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-Combi) study.

机译:成本效益分析:硝苯地平和缬沙坦的控释联合治疗原发性高血压:adalat CR和缬沙坦的成本效益联合研究(ADVANCE-Combi)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

As recommended by the guidelines such as JSH 2004, combination therapy with multiple agents is now being applied to many patients with hypertension. However, a pharmacoeconomic analysis of each therapy has not been fully undertaken in Japan, despite increasing societal interest. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of two calcium channel blockers, each coadministered with an angiotensin receptor blockade, was compared using data from the ADVANCE-Combi study. The ADVANCE-Combi study was a 16-week double-blind, randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of two combination therapies (controlled-release nifedipine [nifedipine CR] plus valsartan vs. amlodipine plus valsartan) on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. The incremental cost effectiveness of each cohort was compared from the perspective of insurers. The average total cost per patient was Japanese yen (JPY) 31,615 for the nifedipine CR treatment group and JPY 35,399 for the amlodipine treatment group (p < 0.001). The achievement rate of the target BP (SBP/DBP < 130/85 mmHg for patients aged under 60 years; SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for those aged 60 years and over) was significantly higher in the nifedipine CR treatment group (61.2%) than in the amlodipine treatment group (34.6%) (p < 0.001), with no difference in the incidence of drug-related adverse events. Accordingly, the base case economic analysis demonstrated that the nifedipine CR treatment group was dominant (more efficacious and less costly) to the amlodipine treatment group. This result was supported by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. These results indicate that nifedipine CR-based combination therapy is superior to amlodipine-based combination therapy for the management of essential hypertension in the Japanese population.
机译:按照JSH 2004等指南的建议,目前将多种药物联合治疗用于许多高血压患者。然而,尽管社会关注度提高,但在日本尚未对每种疗法进行药物经济学分析。在这项研究中,使用ADVANCE-Combi研究的数据比较了两种钙通道阻滞剂(分别与血管紧张素受体阻滞剂并用)的成本效益。 ADVANCE-Combi研究是一项为期16周的双盲,随机临床试验,用于比较两种联合疗法(控释硝苯地平[nifedipine CR]加缬沙坦与氨氯地平加缬沙坦)对血压(BP)的疗效和安全性控制中重度原发性高血压的患者。从保险公司的角度比较了每个队列的增量成本效益。硝苯地平CR治疗组每位患者的平均总费用为31,615日元,氨氯地平治疗组为35,399日元(p <0.001)。硝苯地平CR治疗组的目标BP达成率(SBP / DBP <130/85 mmHg对于60岁以下的患者; SBP / DBP <140/90 mmHg对于60岁及以上的患者)(61.2 %)比氨氯地平治疗组(34.6%)(p <0.001),药物相关不良事件的发生率无差异。因此,基础案例经济分析表明,硝苯地平CR治疗组比氨氯地平治疗组占优势(更有效且成本更低)。单因素和概率敏感性分析支持了该结果。这些结果表明,在日本人群中,基于硝苯地平CR的联合治疗优于基于氨氯地平的联合治疗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号