ArticlePloS one2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical care for hypertensive patients from the perspective of the public health system in Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical care in adult critically ill patients: based on a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Effect of Medication Therapy Management by Pharmaceutical Care on Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk in Hypertension: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The cost-effectiveness of hypertension management in low-income and middle-income countries: a review.BMJ global health · 2020Review
- A global perspective on the costs of hypertension: a systematic review.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOnly 20% of patients with systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) have blood pressure within recommended parameters. SAH has been the main risk factor for morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular diseases, which affects the burden of the Public Health System (PHS). Some studies have shown the effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Care (PC) in the care of hypertensive patients.
objectiveTo perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare SAH treatment with PC management and conventional treatment for hypertensive patients offered by the PHS.
methodsA cost-effectiveness study nested to a quasi-experimental study was conducted, in which 104 hypertensive patients were followed up in a PC program. Blood pressure control was considered as the outcome for the economic analysis and the costs were direct and non-direct medical costs.
resultsPC was dominant for two years in the post-PC period compared with the pre-PC year. The mean cost effectiveness ratio (CER) for the CERPre-PC, CERPC, and CERPost-PC periods were: US$ 364.65, US$ 415.39, and US$ 231.14 respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis presented ICER of US$ 478.41 in the PC period and US$ 42.95 in the post PC period. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis presented mean ICERPC and ICERPost-PC equal to US$ 605.09 and US$ 128.03, reaching US$ 1,725.00 and US$ 740.00 respectively.
conclusionEven for the highest ICER, the values were below the cost effectiveness threshold, which means that PC was a cost effective strategy for the care of hypertensive patients in the PHS.
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.