A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of S-Amlodipine in China.

S. L. Hu,Y. Zhang,J. He,L. Du
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.240
IF: 5.156
2014-01-01
Value in Health
Abstract:This paper aimed to compare the difference in cost-effectiveness between S-Amlodipine and racemic amlodipine .The two head-to-head multi-center randomized control studies as well as their price in the treatment were used. RESULTS:After 4-8 weeks treatment, there was no statistical significant difference observed in efficacy rate between S-Amlodipine group (110cases) and racemic Norvasc group (107 cases) (84.91%vs. 77.45%). The cost of Norvasc was 100%higher than that of S-Amlodipine. For the results of 6-month treatment, no matter blood pressure checked clinically or monitored 24 hours dynamically, the cost of Norvasc was 1.62-1.79 times higher than that of S-Amlodipine. The rate of adverse reaction in S-Amlodipine group (4.6%) was significantly lower than that in Norvasc group (10.3%). CONCLUSIONS:The domestic product of S-Amlodipine is more cost-effectiveness than the original Norvasc product.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?