You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 20, Issue 4
  • Potential cost-savings may be considerable with management of hypertension according to updated US hypertension guidelines, but for women aged 35–44 years these benefits are unlikely

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Economic analysis
Cost-effectiveness study
Potential cost-savings may be considerable with management of hypertension according to updated US hypertension guidelines, but for women aged 35–44 years these benefits are unlikely
  1. Dominique A Cadilhac,
  2. Joosup Kim
  1. Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to : Associate Professor Dominique A Cadilhac, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, 43–51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC, 3168 Australia; dominique.cadilhac{at}monash.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2015-110202

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Commentary on: Moran AE, Odden MC, Thanataveerat A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hypertension therapy according to 2014 guidelines. N Engl J Med 2015;372:447–55.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Context

    The number of people with hypertension is anticipated to increase despite greater awareness of the condition as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and more options for treatment. Clinical guidelines are evidence-based recommendations used to inform clinician practice when treating an individual patient. Regular updates of guidelines are important to ensure their ongoing relevance. Moran and colleagues investigated the potential cost implications in the USA if the management of hypertension aligned with the updated USA guidelines.1

    Methods

    The authors used the updated Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model.2 Drug-treatment, monitoring costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved from prevention of CVD in untreated adults …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors DAC wrote the draft and JK contributed to this following review of the article which is the focus of the Commentary.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Copyright information:

    Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions