Cost-effectiveness of chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril as first-step treatment for patients with hypertension: An analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE Heidenreich, P. A., Davis, B. R., Cutler, J. A., Furberg, C. D., Lairson, D. R., Shlipak, M. G., Pressel, S. L., Nwachuku, C., Goldman, L. 2008; 23 (5): 509-516


To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for hypertension.The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) found that first-line treatment with lisinopril or amlodipine was not significantly superior to chlorthalidone in terms of the primary endpoint, so differences in costs may be critical for optimizing decision-making.Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using bootstrap resampling to evaluate uncertainty.Over a patient's lifetime, chlorthalidone was always least expensive (mean $4,802 less than amlodipine, $3,700 less than lisinopril). Amlodipine provided more life-years (LYs) than chlorthalidone in 84% of bootstrap samples (mean 37 days) at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,400 per LY gained. Lisinopril provided fewer LYs than chlorthalidone in 55% of bootstrap samples (mean 7-day loss) despite a higher cost. At a threshold of $50,000 per LY gained, amlodipine was preferred in 50%, chlorthalidone in 40%, and lisinopril in 10% of bootstrap samples, but these findings were highly sensitive to the cost of amlodipine and the cost-effectiveness threshold chosen. Incorporating quality of life did not appreciably alter the results. Overall, no reasonable combination of assumptions led to 1 treatment being preferred in over 90% of bootstrap samples.Initial treatment with chlorthalidone is less expensive than lisinopril or amlodipine, but amlodipine provided a nonsignificantly greater survival benefit and may be a cost-effective alternative. A randomized trial with power to exclude "clinically important" differences in survival will often have inadequate power to determine the most cost-effective treatment.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s11606-008-0515-2

View details for Web of Science ID 000255195300001

View details for PubMedID 18228109

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC2324142