Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension

Ola Granström,¹ Lars-Åke Levin,² Martin Henriksson<sup>1

1</sup>AstraZeneca Nordic, Södertälje, ²Center for Medical Technology Assessment, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Background: Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties, no comparative randomized studies with cardiovascular event endpoints have been performed for this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of candesartan (Atacand^®) versus generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension.
Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes over a patient's lifetime. Data from a clinical registry study were used to estimate event rates for cardiovascular complications, such as myocardial infarction and heart failure. Costs and quality of life data were from published sources. Costs were in Swedish kronor and the outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Results: Due to reduced rates of cardiovascular complications, candesartan was associated with a QALY gain and lower health care costs compared with generic losartan (0.053 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4700 Swedish kronor for women; and 0.057 QALYs gained and reduced costs of approximately 4250 Swedish kronor for men). This result was robust in several sensitivity analyses.
Conclusion: When modeling costs and health outcomes based on event rates for cardiovascular complications from a real-world registry study, candesartan appears to bring a QALY gain and a reduction in costs compared with generic losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension in Sweden.

Keywords: hypertension, angiotensin receptor blockers, cost-effectiveness, decision analysis