ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2012
Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-utility analysis of valsartan, enalapril, and candesartan in patients with heart failure in Iran.Health economics review · 2023Article
- High Risk versus Proportional Benefit: Modelling Equitable Strategies in Cardiovascular Prevention.PloS one · 2015Article
- Do Economic Evaluations in Primary Care Prevention and the Management of Hypertension Conform to Good Practice Guidelines? A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties, no comparative randomized studies with cardiovascular event endpoints have been performed for this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of candesartan (Atacand(®)) versus generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension.
methodsA decision-analytic model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes over a patient's lifetime. Data from a clinical registry study were used to estimate event rates for cardiovascular complications, such as myocardial infarction and heart failure. Costs and quality of life data were from published sources. Costs were in Swedish kronor and the outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
resultsDue to reduced rates of cardiovascular complications, candesartan was associated with a QALY gain and lower health care costs compared with generic losartan (0.053 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4700 Swedish kronor for women; and 0.057 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4250 Swedish kronor for men). This result was robust in several sensitivity analyses.
conclusionWhen modeling costs and health outcomes based on event rates for cardiovascular complications from a real-world registry study, candesartan appears to bring a QALY gain and a reduction in costs compared with generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension in Sweden.
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.