Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The cost-effectiveness of candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment for the prevention of nonfatal stroke: results from the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 19, pages 569–576 (2005)Cite this article

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 20 July 2005

Abstract

Patients who survive a first stroke are often left with permanent disabilities, and have significant needs for rehabilitation and long-term care. Antihypertensive treatment reduces the risk of cardiovascular events such as stroke. The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment for the prevention of nonfatal stroke. The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on data from Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), where patients were randomly assigned to receive the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan or placebo, with open-label active antihypertensive treatment added as needed. The analysis was carried out using a Markov model, which combined clinical and resource utilization data from SCOPE with Swedish retail prices for drugs and unit costs for in-patient stays, and outpatient visits. The cost per patient was 1949 EUR in the candesartan group and 1578 EUR in the control group. The largest share of the cost was attributed to antihypertensive treatment in the candesartan group and to the long-term cost of stroke in the control group. Candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment was associated with 0.0289 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient and an incremental cost per QALY gained of approximately 13 000 EUR. Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were fairly stable. In conclusion, the cost per QALY gained with candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment lies within the range of society's willingness to pay for health gains. The results indicate that candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment is cost-effective for the prevention of nonfatal stroke.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wester P et al. Slaganfall (Stroke). The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU): Stockholm, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Causes of Death 2001. Centre for Epidemiology, The National Board of Health and Welfare: Stockholm, 2003.

  3. Caird FI, Cargill D . Chronic brain failure: the silent epidemic. NZ Med J 1987; 100: 13–16.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Murray CJ, Lopez AD . Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1269–1276.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johannesson M, Jonsson B . Cost-effectiveness analysis of hypertension treatment — a review of methodological issues. Health Policy 1991; 19: 55–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Johannesson M . Economic evaluation of hypertension treatment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8: 506–523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Strandgaard S, Paulson OB . Cerebrovascular consequences of hypertension. Lancet 1994; 344: 519–521.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Skoog I . Risk factors for vascular dementia: a review. Dementia 1994; 5: 137–144.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. MacMahon S et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990; 335: 765–774.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dahlof B et al. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338: 1281–1285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265: 3255–3264.

  12. MRC Working Party. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ 1992; 304: 405–412.

  13. Menard J . Cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment. Clin Exp Hypertens 1996; 18: 399–413.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Johannesson M et al. The cost-effectiveness of treating hypertension in elderly people — an analysis of the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP Hypertension). J Intern Med 1993; 234: 317–323.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Johannesson M . The cost effectiveness of hypertension treatment in Sweden. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 242–250.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Degl'Innocenti A et al. Cognitive function and health-related quality of life in elderly patients with hypertension — baseline data from the study on cognition and prognosis in the elderly (SCOPE). Blood Press 2002; 11: 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Degl'Innocenti A et al. Health-related quality of life during treatment of elderly patients with hypertension: results from the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18: 239–245.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hansson L et al. Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). Blood Press 1999; 8: 177–183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansson L et al. Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): baseline characteristics. Blood Press 2000; 9: 146–151.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lithell H et al. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 875–886.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Price indices. Statistical Yearbook of Sweden. Statistics Sweden: Stockholm, 2002.

  22. Monthly and Yearly Average Exchange Rates Since 1980. Bank of Sweden: Stockholm, 2004.

  23. Lipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW . Time preference. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB (eds). Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York (NY), 1996, pp 214–246.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sonnenberg F, Beck J . Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 322–338.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. LINFO. FASS Läkemedel i Sverige (Swedish Drug Price List). Läkemedelsinformation AB: Oslo, 2002.

  26. Kostnad per intagen patient [Cost per Admitted Patient]. Federation of county councils: Stockholm, 1996.

  27. Wimo A, Sandman P . Demensvård för nästa sekel [Dementia care for the next century]. Report, Swedish Association of Local Authorities, 1999.

  28. Regional hospital price lists. County councils in Sweden, 2002.

  29. Meltzer D . Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 33–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Johannesson M, Meltzer D, O'Conor RM . Incorporating future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: Implications for the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hypertension. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 382–389.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ekman M, Zethraeus N, Dahlstrom U, Hoglund C . Kostnadseffektivt att behandla kronisk hjärtsvikt med bisoprolol [Cost-effectiveness of bisoprolol in chronic heart failure]. Lakartidningen 2002; 99: 646–650.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A . A social tariff for EuroQoL: results from a UK general population survey. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1997.

  33. National Statistics. Statistic Sweden: Stockholm, 2003.

  34. Bronnum-Hansen H, Davidsen M, Thorvaldsen P . Long-term survival and causes of death after stroke. Stroke 2001; 32: 2131–2136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lundberg L . Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Eur J Publ Health 1999; 9: 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Newhouse JP . US and UK health economics: two disciplines separated by a common language? Health Econ 1998; 7: S79–S92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E . Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 332–342.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Johannesson M, Meltzer D . Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998; 7: 1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ekman M . Studies in Health Economics. EFI, Stockholm School of Economics: Stockholm, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zethraeus N, Molin T, Henriksson P, Jonsson B . Costs of coronary heart disease and stroke: the case of Sweden. J Intern Med 1999; 246: 151–159.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Claesson L et al. Resource utilization and costs of stroke unit care integrated in a care continuum: A 1-year controlled, prospective, randomized study in elderly patients: the Goteborg 70+ Stroke Study. Stroke 2000; 31: 2569–2577.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Glader E, Terént A . The cost of stroke in Sweden — an incidence estimate. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20: 375–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F . Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 621–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ekman M . Economic evidence in stroke: a review. Eur J Health Econ 2004; 5(Suppl 1): S74–S83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Health Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    J Lundkvist, M Ekman & L Jönsson

  2. Health Economics & Outcomes Research, AstraZeneca R&D Mölndal, Mölndal, Sweden

    B Kartman

  3. Biostatistics, AstraZeneca R&D Mölndal, Mölndal, Sweden

    J Carlsson

  4. Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    H Lithell

Authors
  1. J Lundkvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Ekman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B Kartman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J Carlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L Jönsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H Lithell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Lundkvist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lundkvist, J., Ekman, M., Kartman, B. et al. The cost-effectiveness of candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment for the prevention of nonfatal stroke: results from the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly. J Hum Hypertens 19, 569–576 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001857

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001857

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links