IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v13y2023i1d10.1186_s13561-023-00457-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-utility analysis of valsartan, enalapril, and candesartan in patients with heart failure in Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Ramin Ravangard

    (Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
    Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)

  • Farideh Sadat Jalali

    (Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)

  • Marjan Hajahmadi

    (Rasoul Akram General Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences)

  • Abdosaleh Jafari

    (Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
    Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)

Abstract

Background Today, heart failure is one of the leading causes of death and disability in most developed and developing countries. By 2030, more than 23.3 million people are projected to die of cardiovascular diseases each year, and the prevalence of heart failure is expected to increase by 25%. One of the preventive interventions is pharmacological interventions which can be used to reduce the complications of cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure. One of the most important pharmacological interventions in patients with heart failure is the use of antihypertensive drugs such as candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan in patients with heart failure using the Markov model in Iran in 2020. Methods In the present study, a four-state Markov model was designed to compare the cost-utility of candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 heart failure patients older than 24 years. The payers’ perspective was used to calculate the costs. The Markov states included outpatients with heart failure, patients with heart failure admitted to general hospital wards, patients with heart failure admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs), and death. The effectiveness measure in this study was the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to determine the robustness of the results. The TreeAge Pro 2011 software was used for data analysis. Results The results showed that the average expected costs and QALYs were 119645.45 USD and 16.15 for valsartan, 113,019.68 USD and 15.16 for enalapril, and 113,093.37 USD and 15.06 for candesartan, respectively. Candesartan was recognized as the dominated option. Because the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value (6,692.69 USD) was less than the threshold value (7,256 USD), valsartan was cost-effective compared to enalapril. The results of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that at the threshold of 7,256 USD, valsartan had a 60% chance of being cost-effective compared to enalapril. The results of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Moreover, the results showed that ICU (1,112 USD) had the highest cost among cost items. Conclusion According to the results, it is recommended that health policymakers consider the use of valsartan by cardiologists when designing clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with heart failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramin Ravangard & Farideh Sadat Jalali & Marjan Hajahmadi & Abdosaleh Jafari, 2023. "Cost-utility analysis of valsartan, enalapril, and candesartan in patients with heart failure in Iran," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-023-00457-4
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-023-00457-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-023-00457-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-023-00457-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Clarke, Lorcan, 2020. "An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    9. Andrew Gawron & Dustin French & John Pandolfino & Colin Howden, 2014. "Economic Evaluations of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Medical Management," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 745-758, August.
    10. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    11. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    12. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    13. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    14. Katherine Edwards & Natasha Jones & Julia Newton & Charlie Foster & Andrew Judge & Kate Jackson & Nigel K. Arden & Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, 2017. "The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review of the characteristics and methodological quality of published literature," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    16. Nina van der Vliet & Anita W.M. Suijkerbuijk & Adriana T. de Blaeij & G. Ardine de Wit & Paul F. van Gils & Brigit A.M. Staatsen & Rob Maas & Johan J. Polder, 2020. "Ranking Preventive Interventions from Different Policy Domains: What Are the Most Cost-Effective Ways to Improve Public Health?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-24, March.
    17. Simon van der Schans & Lucas M. A. Goossens & Melinde R. S. Boland & Janwillem W. H. Kocks & Maarten J. Postma & Job F. M. van Boven & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2017. "Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendatio," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-63, January.
    18. Andrew Briggs & Rachel Nugent, 2016. "Editorial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 6-8, February.
    19. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 601-609, June.
    20. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-023-00457-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.