Cost-Utility Analysis of Eprosartan Compared to Enalapril in Primary Prevention and Nitrendipine in Secondary Prevention in Europe—The HEALTH Model

Objective: To investigate the cost-utility of eprosartan versus enalapril (primary prevention) and versus nitrendipine (secondary prevention) on the basis of head-to-head evidence from randomized controlled trials. Methods: The HEALTH model (Health Economic Assessment of Life with Teveten® for Hypertension) is an object-oriented probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model. It combines a Framingham-based risk calculation with a systolic blood pressure approach to estimate the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events based on recent meta-analyses. In secondary prevention, an additional risk reduction is modeled for eprosartan according to the results of the MOSES study ("Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke - Eprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention"). Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives. Results: Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (24,036) followed by Belgium (17,863), the UK (16,364), Norway ( 13,834), Sweden ( 11,691) and Spain ( 7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (9136) followed by the UK (6008), Norway (1695), Sweden (907), Spain (-2054) and Belgium (-5767). Conclusions: Considering a 30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients 50 years old and a systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients). © 2009, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).