Lars H Lindholm, Bernt Kartman, Bo Carlberg, Mats Persson, Anders Svensson, Ola Samuelsson
{"title":"ALPINE研究中糖尿病发展的成本影响","authors":"Lars H Lindholm, Bernt Kartman, Bo Carlberg, Mats Persson, Anders Svensson, Ola Samuelsson","doi":"10.1097/01.hjh.0000220409.69116.2e","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study (ALPINE).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In newly diagnosed hypertensive individuals as yet untreated with drugs, the ALPINE study compared the 1-year metabolic effects of inexpensive treatment with a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination (84%) with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker (atenolol), with that of newer but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination (71%) with a calcium antagonist (felodipine). No crossover of medication was allowed. The cost-effectiveness analysis included costs for antihypertensive treatment during follow-up, and lifetime costs for care of diabetes mellitus diagnosed during follow-up. Cost per patient was calculated using Swedish prices and costs, translated into US dollars (US$), at 2004 prices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during the 1-year follow-up period of the study, eight in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and one (0.5%) in the candesartan/felodipine group (P < 0.05). The cost of antihypertensive treatment per patient was US$92 in the hydrochlorothiazide/atenolol group and US$422 in the candesartan/felodipine group. Lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus per patient in the two groups was US$1013 and US$127, respectively. Total cost per patient was US$556 less in the candesartan/felodipine group. In sensitivity analyses, the outcome for the candesartan/felodipine group ranged from cost savings to an incremental cost of US$30 000 per case of diabetes mellitus prevented. In all analyses but one, the additional cost for antihypertensive treatment in the candesartan/felodipine group could be balanced by the reduced lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that an antihypertensive treatment strategy with candesartan and felodipine may have a favourable health economic impact in the longer term.</p>","PeriodicalId":16074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hypertension. Supplement : official journal of the International Society of Hypertension","volume":"24 1","pages":"S65-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.hjh.0000220409.69116.2e","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost implications of development of diabetes in the ALPINE study.\",\"authors\":\"Lars H Lindholm, Bernt Kartman, Bo Carlberg, Mats Persson, Anders Svensson, Ola Samuelsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/01.hjh.0000220409.69116.2e\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study (ALPINE).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In newly diagnosed hypertensive individuals as yet untreated with drugs, the ALPINE study compared the 1-year metabolic effects of inexpensive treatment with a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination (84%) with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker (atenolol), with that of newer but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination (71%) with a calcium antagonist (felodipine). No crossover of medication was allowed. The cost-effectiveness analysis included costs for antihypertensive treatment during follow-up, and lifetime costs for care of diabetes mellitus diagnosed during follow-up. Cost per patient was calculated using Swedish prices and costs, translated into US dollars (US$), at 2004 prices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during the 1-year follow-up period of the study, eight in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and one (0.5%) in the candesartan/felodipine group (P < 0.05). The cost of antihypertensive treatment per patient was US$92 in the hydrochlorothiazide/atenolol group and US$422 in the candesartan/felodipine group. Lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus per patient in the two groups was US$1013 and US$127, respectively. Total cost per patient was US$556 less in the candesartan/felodipine group. In sensitivity analyses, the outcome for the candesartan/felodipine group ranged from cost savings to an incremental cost of US$30 000 per case of diabetes mellitus prevented. In all analyses but one, the additional cost for antihypertensive treatment in the candesartan/felodipine group could be balanced by the reduced lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that an antihypertensive treatment strategy with candesartan and felodipine may have a favourable health economic impact in the longer term.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of hypertension. Supplement : official journal of the International Society of Hypertension\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"S65-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.hjh.0000220409.69116.2e\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of hypertension. Supplement : official journal of the International Society of Hypertension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0000220409.69116.2e\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hypertension. Supplement : official journal of the International Society of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0000220409.69116.2e","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost implications of development of diabetes in the ALPINE study.
Objective: To present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study (ALPINE).
Design: In newly diagnosed hypertensive individuals as yet untreated with drugs, the ALPINE study compared the 1-year metabolic effects of inexpensive treatment with a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination (84%) with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker (atenolol), with that of newer but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination (71%) with a calcium antagonist (felodipine). No crossover of medication was allowed. The cost-effectiveness analysis included costs for antihypertensive treatment during follow-up, and lifetime costs for care of diabetes mellitus diagnosed during follow-up. Cost per patient was calculated using Swedish prices and costs, translated into US dollars (US$), at 2004 prices.
Results: Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during the 1-year follow-up period of the study, eight in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and one (0.5%) in the candesartan/felodipine group (P < 0.05). The cost of antihypertensive treatment per patient was US$92 in the hydrochlorothiazide/atenolol group and US$422 in the candesartan/felodipine group. Lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus per patient in the two groups was US$1013 and US$127, respectively. Total cost per patient was US$556 less in the candesartan/felodipine group. In sensitivity analyses, the outcome for the candesartan/felodipine group ranged from cost savings to an incremental cost of US$30 000 per case of diabetes mellitus prevented. In all analyses but one, the additional cost for antihypertensive treatment in the candesartan/felodipine group could be balanced by the reduced lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus.
Conclusions: The results suggest that an antihypertensive treatment strategy with candesartan and felodipine may have a favourable health economic impact in the longer term.