Wentian, He Jimeno, Cecilia A. Panelo, Carlo Irwin A. text monographic eng

print

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of imidapril versus metoprolol as monotherapy in Filipino patients with Stage 1 essential hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health care payer. METHOD: Medical records of 94 out-patients aged 40-70 years old, with Stage 1 essential hypertension and follow-up treatment of 3 months at the Philippine General Hospital were reviewed. Effectiveness of each drug was based on: 1) percentage of patients achieving target blood pressure (< 140 / 90 mmHg); and 2) mean reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Cost-effectiveness of each drug was evaluated using the criteria of cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean cost of treatment with metoprolol was significantly lower than imidapril. However, treatment with imidapril resulted in a statistically significantly better blood pressure control compared to metoprolol; 77 percent of those given imidapril achieved the target BP vs 56 percent for metoprolol (p=0.03). CER and the ICER showed that 3-months treatment with metoprolol is more cost-effective than the use of imidapril. CONCLUSION: Use of metoprolol over a 3-month period is more cost-effective than imidapril in the treatment of Filipino patients with Stage 1 essential hypertension. He Wentian [two others] In: Acta Medica Philippina, 2006 vol. 40 (1) pages: 29-36 Metoprolol Hypertension therapy Imidapril 210211 20210211113836.0 D0001J000020