Amlodipine cost effectiveness
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers
Amlodipine Cost-Effectiveness in Hypertension Management
Cost-Effectiveness Compared to Other Antihypertensive Agents
Multiple studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of amlodipine compared to other antihypertensive drugs, including captopril, candesartan, and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) such as valsartan. Across different settings and populations, amlodipine consistently demonstrates favorable cost-effectiveness profiles.
In studies comparing amlodipine to captopril for hypertensive patients, including those with diabetes, amlodipine achieved higher therapeutic effectiveness and lower average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACER), indicating better value for money. For example, in one study, amlodipine had an effectiveness rate of 86.7% compared to 60% for captopril, with a slightly higher direct medical cost but a lower ACER, making it more cost-effective overall Bulan2022Bulan2022Kamri2021.
When compared to candesartan, amlodipine also showed higher therapeutic effectiveness and lower ACER values in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Studies found that amlodipine monotherapy was more cost-effective than both candesartan monotherapy and amlodipine-candesartan combination therapy, with lower costs per unit of effectiveness Mutoharoh2017Anggraini2023Hasanah2024.
Cost-Utility in Preventing Cardiovascular Events
Amlodipine has been shown to be cost-saving and more effective in preventing major cardiovascular events such as stroke and myocardial infarction compared to ARBs like valsartan. In both Taiwanese and Chinese populations, amlodipine was associated with lower total costs and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a five-year period. These studies concluded that amlodipine is a dominant therapy, offering both cost savings and better health outcomes Chan2016Wu2013Gupta2021.
Comparison with ACEIs/ARBs
While some research suggests that ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or ARBs may provide slightly greater reductions in blood pressure, these benefits come at a higher incremental cost. In one study, ACEIs/ARBs were more effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure but were also costlier than amlodipine, with only moderate confidence in their cost-effectiveness advantage. Overall, amlodipine remains a cost-effective option, especially when considering broader populations and healthcare settings .
S-Amlodipine Versus Racemic Amlodipine
S-amlodipine, a more active form of amlodipine, has been found to be as effective as racemic amlodipine but with fewer side effects, such as peripheral edema. This makes S-amlodipine a cost-effective alternative, potentially reducing healthcare expenditures further while maintaining clinical efficacy .
Conclusion
Across diverse healthcare settings and patient populations, amlodipine consistently emerges as a cost-effective antihypertensive agent. It offers better or comparable clinical outcomes at lower or similar costs compared to captopril, candesartan, and ARBs, and is particularly effective in preventing costly cardiovascular events. These findings support the use of amlodipine as a first-line, economically favorable option for hypertension management Bulan2022Chan2016Wu2013+7 MORE.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic
DOI