| 51. |
|
|
| 52. |
|
|
| 53. |
- Lindgren, P., et al.
(författare)
-
The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT1
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Pharmacoeconomics. - 1170-7690. ; 27:3, s. 221-30
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) showed in hypertensive patients that blood pressure-lowering treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen reduces events compared with an atenolol-based regimen and that atorvastatin was more effective than placebo. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of four alternative treatment strategies in patients with hypertension and three or more cardiovascular risk factors in the UK (from the UK NHS perspective) or Sweden (from the societal perspective): amlodipine-based plus atorvastatin, atenolol-based plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based alone and atenolol-based alone. METHODS: Based on the trial data, a Markov model was constructed where the risk of myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures and stroke and the long-term costs, quality of life and mortality associated with these events were estimated. Transition probabilities and costs (euro, 2007 values) were based on the patient-level trial data. Outcomes were reported as life-years gained and QALYs. In the latter case, utility reduction from events was based on a substudy in ASCOT patients. Treatment was applied for the duration of the lipid-lowering arm of the trial (3 years) and patients were then followed to the end of their life. RESULTS: Amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin was the most expensive but also most effective treatment. Compared with amlodipine-based therapy alone, the cost to gain one QALY was euro 11,965 in the UK and euro 8,591 in Sweden. The incremental cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy compared with atenolol-based therapy was euro 9,548 and euro 3,965 per QALY gained in the UK and Sweden, respectively. Atenolol-based therapy plus atorvastatin was eliminated through extended dominance. Applying the threshold values used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, a combination of amlodipine-based therapy and atorvastatin appears to be cost effective in patients with hypertension and three or more additional risk factors.
|
|
| 54. |
- Lindgren, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Utility loss and indirect costs following cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: the ASCOT health economic substudy
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Eur J Health Econ. - 1618-7598.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study assessed the loss of utility and indirect costs associated with first cardiovascular events. Data was collected (using EQ-5D) prospectively at 3, 6, and 12 months following an event in the Swedish part of the Anglo-Scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial (ASCOT), including patients with mild to moderate hypertension and additional risk factors. Sixty patients were eligible for analysis. An event was associated with a one-year utility loss of 0.075 (95% CI: 0.038-0.114). For a stroke, the reduction was 0.145 (CI: 0.059-0.249) and for acute coronary syndromes (myocardial infarction or unstable angina) the loss was 0.051 (-0.003 to 0.103). The utility at baseline was no different to the utility in a control group. The indirect cost over the first 12 months (2003 Swedish Kronor, SEK) was 90028 SEK (CI: 46027-146754), 9866 for patients in the workforce. These results are helpful in future economic evaluations of primary preventive measures in cardiovascular medicine.
|
|
| 55. |
|
|
| 56. |
|
|
| 57. |
|
|
| 58. |
|
|
| 59. |
- Poulter, N. R., et al.
(författare)
-
Role of blood pressure and other variables in the differential cardiovascular event rates noted in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA)
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 366:9489, s. 907-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Results of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) show significantly lower rates of coronary and stroke events in individuals allocated an amlodipine-based combination drug regimen than in those allocated an atenolol-based combination drug regimen (HR 0.86 and 0.77, respectively). Our aim was to assess to what extent these differences were due to significant differences in blood pressures and in other variables noted after randomisation. METHODS: We used data from ASCOT-BPLA (n=19 257) and compared differences in accumulated mean blood pressure levels at sequential times in the trial with sequential differences in coronary and stroke events. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood pressure was used to adjust HRs for differences in these events. We used an updated Cox-regression model to assess the effects of differences in accumulated mean levels of various measures of blood pressure, serum HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and potassium, fasting blood glucose, heart rate, and bodyweight on differences in event rates. FINDINGS: We noted no temporal link between size of differences in blood pressure and different event rates. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood-pressure attenuated HRs for coronary and stroke events to a similar extent as did adjustments for systolic blood-pressure differences in Cox-regression analyses. HRs for coronary events and stroke adjusted for blood pressure rose from 0.86 (0.77-0.96) to 0.88 (0.79-0.98) and from 0.77 (0.66-0.89) to 0.83 (0.72-0.96), respectively. Multivariate adjustment gave HRs of 0.94 (0.81-1.08) for coronary events (HDL cholesterol being the largest contributor) and 0.87 (0.73-1.05) for stroke events. INTERPRETATION: Multivariate adjustment accounted for about half of the differences in coronary events and for about 40% of the differences in stroke events between the treatment regimens tested in ASCOT-BPLA, but residual differences were no longer significant. These residual differences could indicate inadequate statistical adjustment, but it remains possible that differential effects of the two treatment regimens on other variables also contributed to the different rates noted, particularly for stroke.
|
|
| 60. |
|
|
