Key result
Ambrisentan was not cost-effective compared to bosentan for pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension, with higher expected annual costs ($16,055 vs $14,503) and lower QALYs (0.39 vs 0.40).
Why the study?
Despite evidence supporting the efficacy of ambrisentan and bosentan in pediatric PAH, information regarding their cost implications was lacking.
Does bosentan improve cost-utility compared to ambrisentan in pediatric patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension?
Does bosentan improve cost-utility compared to ambrisentan in pediatric patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension?
Bosentan is more cost-effective than ambrisentan for treating pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension in Colombia, offering slightly higher QALYs at a lower annual cost.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ambrisentan not cost-effective versus bosentan in Colombian pediatric PAH; leaves open need for prospective trials to inform endothelin antagonist choice.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing evidence supporting the efficacy of ambrisentan and bosentan in improving functional classes among pediatric patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), there is a lack of information regarding their cost implications. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the cost-utility of bosentan compared to ambrisentan for the treatment of pediatric patients with PAH in Colombia. METHODS: We employed a Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the use of ambrisentan or bosentan in pediatric patients diagnosed with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). To ensure the reliability of our findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the model. In our cost-effectiveness analysis, we evaluated the outcomes at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$5,180. RESULTS: The expected annual cost per patient receiving ambrisentan was estimated to be $16,055 (95% CI 15,937 -16,172), while for bosentan it was $14,503 (95% CI 14,489 -14,615). The QALYs per person estimated for ambrisentan were 0.39 (95% CI 0.381-0.382), whereas for bosentan it was 0.40 (95% CI 0.401-0.403). CONCLUSION: Our economic evaluation shows that ambrisentan is not cost-effective regarding bosentan to in treating pulmonary arterial hypertension in C.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buendía et al. (2023) studied pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension. Ambrisentan vs. Bosentan was evaluated on Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Ambrisentan was not cost-effective compared to bosentan for pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension, with higher expected annual costs ($16,055 vs $14,503) and lower QALYs (0.39 vs 0.40).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: