Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39281100›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Comparing scale up of status quo hypertension care against dual combination therapy as separate pills or single pill combinations: an economic evaluation in 24 low- and middle-income countries.

Brian Hutchinson, Muhammad Jami Husain, Rachel Nugent, Deliana Kostova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brian HutchinsonCenter for Global Noncommunicable Diseases, International Development Group, RTI International - 3040 East Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
Muhammad Jami HusainDivision of Global Health Protection, Global Health Center, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton RD NE MS H21-7, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Rachel NugentCenter for Global Noncommunicable Diseases, International Development Group, RTI International - 3040 East Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
Deliana KostovaDivision of Global Health Protection, Global Health Center, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton RD NE MS H21-7, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: International hypertension treatment guidelines recommend initiating pharmacological treatment with combination therapy and using fixed dose single pill combinations (SPCs) to improve adherence. However, few countries have adopted combination therapy as a form of first-line treatment and SPC uptake in low- and middle-income countries is low due in part to cost and availability. Evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness is needed as health authorities consider incorporating new recommendations into national clinical practice guidelines. Methods: Over a 30-year time horizon, we used an Excel-based Markov cohort state-transition model to assess the financial costs (screening, treatment, program, and supply chain costs) and socio-economic outcomes (health outcomes, value of lives saved, productivity losses averted) of three antihypertensive treatment scenarios. A baseline scenario scaled treatment among adults age 30 plus while assuming continuation of the widespread practice of initiating treatment with monotherapy. Scenarios one and two scaled treatment while initiating patients on two antihypertensive medications, either as separate pills or as a SPC. Analysis inputs are informed by country-specific data, meta-analyses of the blood-pressure lowering of antihypertensive medications, and own-studies of medication costs. We compared costs, cost-effectiveness, and net-benefits across scenarios, and assessed uncertainty in a one-way sensitivity analysis. Findings: Using dual combination therapy (with or without SPCs) as first-line treatment would increase costs relative to current practices that largely use monotherapy. Required additional annual resources averaged as much as 3.6, 0.9, and 0.2 percent of government health expenditures in the analysis' low-, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries. However, across 24 countries, over the next 30 years, combination therapy with separate pills could save 430,000 more lives and combination therapy with SPCs could save 564,000 more lives compared to baseline treatment practices. Administration of two or more medications using SPCs generated higher net benefits in most countries (16/24) compared to the baseline scenario. Interpretation: First line treatment employing SPCs is likely to generate higher net benefits compared to status quo treatment practices in countries with relatively higher incomes. To improve population health, national health systems would benefit from reducing structural and other barriers to the use of combination therapy and SPCs. Funding: This journal article was supported by TEPHINET cooperative agreement number 1NU2HGH000044-01-0 funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indexed as

Global healthHealth economicsHealth policyHypertension

Identifiers

PMID39281100
PMCPMC11400602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.