Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025

The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump
Published on: February 5, 2021
Cost-effectiveness of ace inhibitors versus ARBs in heart failure management
Chukwuka Elendu1, Dependable C Amaechi2, Tochi C Elendu3
1Federal University Teaching Hospital, Owerri, Nigeria.
Insights
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are more cost-effective for managing heart failure than angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). This study highlights ACE inhibitors as the preferred choice for healthcare systems.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Heart failure presents a significant global healthcare burden, necessitating effective and cost-efficient management strategies.
- Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are cornerstone therapies for heart failure, differing in mechanism, cost, and side effect profiles.
- Evaluating the comparative cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is crucial for optimizing treatment decisions and resource allocation in heart failure care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs in heart failure management from a healthcare system perspective.
- To analyze direct medical costs and health outcomes associated with both drug classes.
- To identify potential differences in cost-effectiveness across patient subgroups.
Main Methods:
- A decision-analytic Markov model was employed to simulate heart failure progression and compare treatment strategies.
- Data incorporated clinical trial results, real-world effectiveness, direct medical costs, and quality-of-life utility values.
- Cost-effectiveness was primarily assessed using the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
Main Results:
- ACE inhibitors demonstrated lower overall costs and slightly superior quality-adjusted life years compared to ARBs in the base-case analysis.
- Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the general cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, with similar profiles across age groups.
- In patients with severe heart failure, ARBs showed a higher ICER, indicating reduced cost-effectiveness compared to ACE inhibitors.
Conclusions:
- ACE inhibitors represent a more cost-effective treatment option for heart failure management than ARBs, particularly when viewed from a healthcare system's financial standpoint.
- Treatment decisions should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors, preferences, and clinical severity.
- These findings offer valuable guidance for healthcare policy and clinical practice regarding the economic implications of heart failure pharmacotherapy.
Background:
Heart failure is a chronic condition that imposes a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Effective management is crucial for improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used to manage heart failure by reducing cardiac strain and preventing disease progression. Despite their common use, ACE inhibitors and ARBs differ in mechanisms, cost, and potential side effects. ACE inhibitors have long been the standard treatment, while ARBs are often prescribed to patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors, particularly due to side effects like cough. Given these differences, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is essential. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from a healthcare system perspective, considering both direct medical costs and health outcomes.
Methods:
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate heart failure progression in a hypothetical cohort. Data inputs included clinical trial outcomes, real-world effectiveness data, direct medical costs (medications, hospitalizations, monitoring), and utility values for quality of life. The primary outcome measures were the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of results, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on age and disease severity.
Results:
The base-case analysis showed that ACE inhibitors were associated with lower overall costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life years than ARBs. Sensitivity analyses revealed that variations in key parameters, such as transition probabilities, mortality rates, and healthcare expenses, had limited impact on the overall cost-effectiveness conclusions. Subgroup analyses indicated that ACE inhibitors and ARBs exhibited similar cost-effectiveness profiles for patients aged <65 and ≥65 years. However, among patients with severe heart failure, ARBs demonstrated a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with ACE inhibitors, suggesting reduced cost-effectiveness in this subgroup.
Conclusion:
ACE inhibitors are likely a more cost-effective option for managing heart failure than ARBs, particularly from a healthcare system perspective. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring treatment decisions to individual patient factors, preferences, and clinical conditions, providing valuable insights for healthcare policy and practice, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness across patient subgroups.
More Related Videos
07:39Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021
06:16Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Antihypertensive Drugs: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers
Antihypertensive Drugs: Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers
Antihypertensive Drugs: Direct Renin Inhibitors
Heart Failure Drugs: Diuretics