ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Cost Effectiveness of ACEIs/ARBs versus Amlodipine Monotherapies: A Single-Center Retrospective Chart Review.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this retrospective chart review study was to examine the cost effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs); angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) such as amlodipine, monotherapies in the management of essential hypertension among adult patients (≥18 years) without cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease in the primary care clinics of a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months from the initiation of therapy. Propensity score bin bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was conducted to generate the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both treatment outcome (e.g., reduction of the systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP) in mmHG) and the cost (e.g., costs of drugs, clinic visits, and labs in Saudi riyals (SAR)). Among the 153 included patients who met the inclusion criteria, 111 patients were on ACEIs/ARBs, while 44 patients were on amlodipine. On the basis of the bootstrap distribution, we found that the use of ACEIs/ARBs was associated with an incremental reduction of SBP of up to 4.46 mmHg but with an incremental cost of up to SAR 116.39 (USD 31.04), which results in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SAR 26.09 (USD 6.95) per 1 mmHg reduction with 55.26% level of confidence. With regard to DBP, ACEIs/ARBs were associated with an incremental reduction of DBP of up to 5.35 mmHg and an incremental cost of up to SAR 144.96 (USD 38.66), which results in an ICER of SAR 27.09 (USD 7.23) per 1 mmHg reduction with 68.10% level of confidence. However, ACEIs/ARBs were less effective and costlier than amlodipine in reducing SBP and DBP with 44.74% and 31.89% levels of confidence, respectively. The findings of this study indicate that the use of ACEI or ARB as a monotherapy seems to be more effective than amlodipine monotherapy in the management of essential hypertension in primary care settings with minimal incremental cost.
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.