ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2010
Identification of factors driving differences in cost effectiveness of first-line pharmacological therapy for uncomplicated hypertension.
Review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Telemonitoring and Case Management for Hypertensive and Remote-Dwelling Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease-The Telemonitoring for Improved Kidney Outcomes Study (TIKO): A Clinical Research Protocol.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2022Article
- MEthods of ASsessing blood pressUre: identifying thReshold and target valuEs (MeasureBP): a review & study protocol.Current hypertension reports · 2015Article
- Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2013Article
- What differentiates primary care physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics for treating mild to moderate hypertension from those who do not? A comparative qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublished practice guidelines and economic evaluations have come to different conclusions regarding optimal pharmacotherapy for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. The drivers of these disparities are not clear. Greater understanding is needed for clinicians, researchers and policy makers to determine the most effective and sustainable strategies.
objectivesTo identify how cost and cost-effectiveness considerations are used to generate recommendations by major hypertension guidelines, and determine key drivers of cost-effectiveness conclusions in available economic evaluations.
methodsA systematic search and narrative review of major hypertension guidelines and health technology assessments of first-line antihypertensive therapy were performed.
resultsOf the eight guidelines identified, formal cost-effectiveness analysis was rarely integrated in the formulation of recommendations. When guidelines considered costs, recommendations remained incongruent. Two economic evaluations were identified (United Kingdom and Canada); however, these differed in their conclusion of the most cost-effective agent and attractiveness of calcium channel blockers. Review of these economic evaluations suggests that cost-effectiveness conclusions are strongly influenced by relative costs of drug classes; when relative differences in drug costs are lower, the impact on associated conditions such as heart failure and diabetes influences cost-effectiveness conclusions.
conclusionIn the setting of finite health care resources and significant budget impact due to high population prevalence, cost effectiveness is an important consideration in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. Identification of key drivers of cost effectiveness will assist interpretation and conduct of current and future economic evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.