Why the study?
Guidelines conflict on drug treatment for stage 1 hypertension with high CVD risk, and evidence on its cost-effectiveness in young and middle-aged patients is scarce.
Does antihypertensive drug treatment improve cost-effectiveness and QALYs in young and middle-aged stage 1 hypertensive patients with high CVD risk compared to non-drug treatment?
Does antihypertensive drug treatment improve cost-effectiveness and QALYs in young and middle-aged stage 1 hypertensive patients with high CVD risk compared to non-drug treatment?
Antihypertensive drug treatment is a cost-saving and dominant strategy for young and middle-aged patients with stage 1 hypertension and high cardiovascular risk in China.
May support drug therapy as cost-saving in high-risk stage 1 hypertension; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background: Drug treatment was recommended for stage 1 hypertensive patients (blood pressure of 130-139 / 80-89 millimetres of mercury (mmHg)) with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2018 Chinese guidelines and 2021 World Health Organization guidelines, but not in other guidelines. However, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment among young and middle-aged patients remains scarce. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment vs. non-drug treatment for stage 1 hypertensive patients aged <60 years with high CVD risk. Methods: A microsimulation model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for drug treatment from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities were estimated from the Kailuan study with a sample size of 34 093 patients aged <60 years with high CVD risk. Costs and health utilities were obtained from the Kailuan study, national statistics reports and published literature. Results: Over a 15-year time horizon, the model predicted that drug treatment generated QALY of 9.36 and was associated with expected costs of 3735 US dollars ($) compared with 9.07 and $3923 produced by non-drug treatment among stage 1 hypertensive patients, resulting in a cost-saving for drug treatment. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10439/QALY (one gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2020), drug treatment had a 99.99% probability of being cost-effective for 10 000 samples of probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analyses by different values of transition probability, cost, utility and discount rate did not appreciably change the results. Shortening the time horizon to the average follow-up period of eight years resulted in ICER of $189/QALY for drug treatment (<1 × GDP/QALY). Conclusions: Our results suggested that drug treatment was a dominant strategy for stage 1 hypertensive patients aged <60 years with high CVD risk in China, which may provide evidence for policymakers and clinicians when weighing the pros and cons of drug treatment for young and middle-aged stage 1 hypertensive patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: