Table 2B.
Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Medicines From the Literature Published in 1990–2016: Comparison Between Medicine Classes (n=28)
| Interventions | Controls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARB | CCB | ACEI | β-blocker | TD | |
| ARB preferred | |||||
| Comparison, n | — | 9 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| ICER | QALY: dominant–$13,016 LY: dominant |
QALY: dominant–$34,244 LY: dominant |
QALY: $1,498–$18,137 LY: dominant–$13,603 |
||
| Medicines assessed | Eprosartan vs amlodipine; eprosartan vs nitrendipine; irbesartan vs amlodipine; losartan vs amlodipine; valsartan vs amlodipine | Eprosartan vs enalpril; eprosartan vs perindopril; losartan vs fosinopril | Losartan vs atenolol | ||
| CCB preferred | |||||
| Comparison, n | 2 | — | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| ICER | QALY: dominant | NR | NR | QALY: $53,594 LY: $62,202 |
|
| Medicines assessed | Amlodipine vs valsartan | Nifedipine vs lisinopril; amlodipine vs enalapril; nifedipine vs captopril | Nifedipine vs propronolol | Amlodipine vs CTD | |
| ACEI preferred | |||||
| Comparison, n | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | 1 |
| ICER | NR | QALY: $19,457 | |||
| Medicines assessed | Amlodipine vs atenolol | Enalapril vs HCTZ | |||
| β-blocker preferred | |||||
| Comparison, n | 0 | 1 | 1 | — | 2 |
| ICER | NR | NR | LY: $4,748 | ||
| Medicines assessed | Propranolol vs nifedipine | Atenolol vs enalpril | Metoprolol vs HCTZ; Propranolol vs HCTZ | ||
| TD preferred | |||||
| Comparison, n | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | — |
| ICER | NR | NR | QALY: dominant LY: dominant |
NR | |
| Medicines assessed | CTD vs losartan | HCTZ vs nifedipine; CTD vs amlodipine | HCTZ vs lisinopril; CTD vs lisinopril; CTD vs enalapril; HCTZ vs enalapril; HCTZ vs captopril | HCTZ vs propranolol; CTD vs propranolol | |
ACEI, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CCB, calcium channel blocker; CTD, chlorthalidone; HCTZ, hydrochlorothiazide; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; LY, life year; NR, not reported; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; TD, thiazide-type diuretic.