Cost-effectiveness of folic acid therapy for primary prevention of stroke in patients with hypertension.

Tiantian Zhang, Zhuoru Liang, Tengfei Lin, David J Cohen, Alejandro Arrieta, Xiaobin Wang, Xianhui Qin, Binyan Wang, Yong Huo, Gordon G Liu, Jie Jiang, Zugui Zhang

Journal: BMC medicine 2022;20(1):407

PMID: 36280851

Abstract

BACKGROUND

For hypertensive patients without a history of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI), the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT) demonstrated that treatment with enalapril-folic acid reduced the risk of primary stroke compared with enalapril alone. Whether folic acid therapy is an affordable and beneficial treatment strategy for the primary prevention of stroke in hypertensive patients from the Chinese healthcare sector perspective has not been thoroughly explored.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the CSPPT, which randomized 20,702 hypertensive patients. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 4.5-year period of in-trial data was used to estimate costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for enalapril-folic acid vs. enalapril over a lifetime horizon from the payer perspective.

RESULTS

During the in-trial follow-up period, patients receiving enalapril-folic acid gained an average of 0.016 QALYs related primarily to reductions in stroke, and the incremental cost was $706.03 (4553.92 RMB). Over a lifetime horizon, enalapril-folic acid treatment was projected to increase quality-adjusted life years by 0.06 QALYs or 0.03 life-year relative to enalapril alone at an incremental cost of $1633.84 (10,538.27 RMB), resulting in an ICER for enalapril-folic acid compared with enalapril alone of $26,066.13 (168,126.54 RMB) per QALY gained and $61,770.73 (398,421.21 RMB) per life-year gained, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that enalapril-folic acid compared with enalapril would be economically attractive in 74.5% of simulations at a threshold of $37,663 (242,9281 RMB) per QALY (3x current Chinese per capita GDP). Several high-risk subgroups had highly favorable ICERs < $12,554 (80,976 RMB) per QALY (1x GDP).

CONCLUSIONS

For both in-trial and over a lifetime, it appears that enalapril-folic acid is a clinically and economically attractive medication compared with enalapril alone. Adding folic acid to enalapril may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of primary stroke in hypertensive patients from the Chinese health system perspective.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Address: College of Pharmacy/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.; Guangzhou Huabo Biopharmaceutical Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.; Department of Pharmacy, The Third Affiliated Hospital (The Affiliated Luohu Hospital) of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.; Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.; College of Pharmacy/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.; Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA.; St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY (D.J.C), USA.; Department of Health Policy and Management, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.; Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.; National Clinical Research Study Center for Kidney Disease, The State Key Laboratory for Organ Failure Research, Renal Division, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.; Shenzhen Evergreen Medical Institute, Shenzhen, China.; Institute of Biomedicine, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.; Department of Cardiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.; National School of Development, Peking University, Beijing, China. [email protected].; Institute for Global Health and Development, Peking University, Beijing, China. [email protected].; College of Pharmacy/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China. [email protected].; Institute for Research in Equity and Community Health, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USA. [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.