ArticleHealth science reports2026
Labetalol, Nifedipine, and Methyldopa for the Management of Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy in Iran: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy create major clinical and economic burdens on maternal health services, making evidence on efficient resource allocation and cost-effectiveness essential for treatment decisions. However, no clear consensus exists on the most cost-effective antihypertensive therapy in Iran. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of methyldopa, labetalol, and nifedipine in pregnant women in Iran. Methods: A decision-analytic model was created using a decision tree framework to compare the cost-effectiveness of labetalol with nifedipine and methyldopa. The model used data from published randomized clinical trials and relevant literature. A hypothetical group of pregnant women aged 18 and older, at least 28 weeks pregnant, and experiencing severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure of 160 mmHg or higher, or diastolic blood pressure of 110 mmHg or higher), was studied over 4 months. The analysis considered the viewpoint of healthcare payers. Costs were measured in US dollars, and health outcomes were represented in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,261 per QALY was set. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, including 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, were conducted to evaluate uncertainty. Results: In the base-case analysis, nifedipine provided the highest QALYs (0.21), followed by labetalol (0.19) and methyldopa (0.16). The total costs were $607 for nifedipine, $500 for labetalol, and $847 for methyldopa. Labetalol was less expensive and more effective than methyldopa, making it the dominant choice. Compared to nifedipine, labetalol was not cost-effective at the specified willingness-to-pay threshold. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that labetalol was cost-effective in 70% of simulations against methyldopa and 29% against nifedipine. Conclusion: From the perspective of Iranian healthcare payers, labetalol is a cost-saving and dominant option compared to methyldopa. However, it is not cost-effective when compared to nifedipine at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,261 per QALY in managing hypertensive disorders during pregnancy.
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.