ALLHAT Cost-effectiveness in the ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Heidenreich P A, et al. J Gen Intern Med 23(5):509–16.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
COURAGE Economic Results of the COURAGE Trial William S. Weintraub, MD Chief of Cardiology Christiana Care Health System Professor of Medicine, Thomas.
Advertisements

ALLHAT New Research Opportunities.
Exploring uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis NICE International and HITAP copyright © 2013 Francis Ruiz NICE International (acknowledgements to:
1 SECOND AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL BLOOD PRESSURE STUDY (ANBP-2) Enalapril/ACEI vs. HCTZ, n = 6,083 Randomized, open-label (blinded endpoint review) All CV events.
Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation Results
Recommendations for Conducting Cost Effectiveness: Elements of the Reference Case Ciaran S. Phibbs, Ph.D. February 25, 2009.
Stanford Prevention Research Center STANFORD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE National Trends in the Prescribing of Anti-Hypertensive Medications Jun Ma, MD, PhD Research.
COST–EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2009.
Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Compared with Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High Risk.
Heart Failure With Preserved And Impaired Systolic Left Ventricular Function In ALLHAT JB Kostis, B Davis, L Simpson, H Black, W Cushman, P Einhorn, M.
Health Economics & Policy 3 rd Edition James W. Henderson Chapter 4 Economic Evaluation in Health Care.
Assessing Health and Economic Outcomes William C. Black, M.D. Director ACRIN Outcomes & Economics Core Laboratory Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.
COURAGE: Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation Purpose To compare the efficacy of optimal medical therapy (OMT)
Did Type of Prior Antihypertensive Therapy Influence the Heart Failure Results in ALLHAT? Richard Grimm, Barry Davis, Linda Piller, Karen Margolis, Joshua.
Results of Monotherapy in ALLHAT: On-treatment Analyses ALLHAT Outcomes for participants who received no step-up drugs.
1 Presenter Disclosure Information FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: DSMB’s: Merck, Takeda Barry R. Davis, MD, PhD Clinical Outcomes in Participants with Dysmetabolic.
6 / 5 / RENAL DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED INTO 3 GROUPS BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (GFR) ALLHAT.
Taxes on the Longevity Dividend: Can we Reduce Them? Lessons from the Theoretical Foundations of Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis David Meltzer MD,
The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ALLHAT study overview Double-blind, randomized trial to determine whether.
Blood Pressure Control By Randomized Drug Group In ALLHAT William C. Cushman, Charles E. Ford, Paula T. Einhorn, Jackson T. Wright, Jr., Richard A. Preston,
Is It the Achieved Blood Pressure or Specific Medications that Make a Difference in Outcome, or Is the Question Moot? William C. Cushman, MD Professor,
1 ATRIAL FIBRILLATION AT BASELINE AND DURING FOLLOW-UP in The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial November 9, 2003.
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Major Outcomes in High Risk Hypertensive.
IAS July The Development of AntiRetroviral Therapy in Africa (DART) trial Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Routine Laboratory or Clinically Driven.
1 Antihypertensive Trial Outcome Differences: Diuretic vs. Calcium Channel Blocker Compared to participants assigned to the diuretic, those assigned to.
Lower the better; the case for glucose Professor Taner DAMCI Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical School, TURKEY.
1 Can One Evaluate An Outcomes Claim Based On An Active Controlled Study? Pfizer Response Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Rockville,
Basic Economic Analysis David Epstein, Centre for Health Economics, York.
Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis N287E Spring 2006 Joanne Spetz 31 May 2006.
Validation / citations. Validation u Expert review of model structure u Expert review of basic code implementation u Reproduce original inputs u Correctly.
انواع ارزيابي های اقتصادي سيدرضا مجدزاده مرکز تحقيقات بهره برداری از دانش سلامت و دانشکده بهداشت دانشگاه علوم پزشکي و خدمات بهداشتي درماني تهران.
Economic Analysis: ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Paul Heidenreich MD, MS ALLHAT.
RESCUE: Assessing Health and Economic Outcomes William C. Black, M.D. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.
Heart Failure (HF) Findings: Are They Real? Stanley S. Franklin, MD, FACP, FACC Clinical Professor of Medicine University of California at Irvine Associate.
HvC Comparative Effectiveness Project Groups 5 and 6
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ALLHAT Major Outcomes in Moderately.
Lecture 9: Analysis of intervention studies Randomized trial - categorical outcome Measures of risk: –incidence rate of an adverse event (death, etc) It.
ALLHAT Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial JAMA 2002;288:
7/27/2006 Outcomes in Hypertensive Black and Nonblack Patients Treated with Chlorthalidone, Amlodipine, and Lisinopril* * Wright JT, Dunn JK, Cutler JA.
Thiazide diuretics, Potassium, and the Development of Diabetes A Quantitative Review Hypertension2006_219.
The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Effect of Diabetes Education During Retinal Ophthalmology Visits on Diabetes Control (Protocol M) 11.
ALLHAT 6/5/ CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (3 GROUPS by GFR)
Pre-ALLHAT Drug Use IMS Health NDTI, Year % of Treated Patients on Medication CCBs Beta Blockers Diuretics ACE Inhibitors.
1 ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Results by Baseline Diabetic Status January 28, 2004.
Long-term Cardiovascular Effects of 4.9 Years of Intensive Blood Pressure Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk.
6/5/ CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (4 GROUPS by GFR) ALLHAT.
Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hypertensives with CHD Randomized to Amlodipine versus Lisinopril in ALLHAT Frans Leenen MD, PhD, Chuke Nwachuku MA, MPH, Dr.
A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control The SPRINT Research Group* November 9, /NEJMoa R2 이성곤 /pf. 우종신.
Results from ASCOT-BPLA: Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood Pressure Lowering Arm VBWG.
Date of download: 6/26/2016 From: Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to an Implantable Cardioverter- Defibrillator Among Patients.
Nephrology Journal Club The SPRINT Trial Parker Gregg
US cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in 20,536 people at different levels of vascular disease risk: randomised placebo-controlled trial UK Medical Research.
Adnan K. Chhatriwalla, MD Saint-Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute
The Importance of Adequately Powered Studies
Health and Human Services National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
The economics of the colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia  G.H. Lyman, N.M. Kuderer  Critical Reviews in.
For a copy of the poster:
ALLHAT ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Results by Baseline Diabetic & Fasting Glucose Status.
David J. Cohen, M.D., M.Sc. Director of Cardiovascular Research
ALLHAT Do the SBP differences between the lisinopril and chlorthalidone arms explain the differences in CVD outcomes?
RAAS Blockade: Focus on ACEI
Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH): Design Randomized, double-blind.
Annals of Internal Medicine • Vol. 167 No. 12 • 19 December 2017
Health and Human Services National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Table of Contents Why Do We Treat Hypertension? Recommendation 5
Originally presented by Drs. Daniel Levy, Richard H. Grimm, Steven E
Post-Heart Failure Mortality
The following slides highlight a report by Dr
Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network
Presentation transcript:

ALLHAT Cost-effectiveness in the ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Heidenreich P A, et al. J Gen Intern Med 23(5):509–16

Objectives Estimate the relative effectiveness of the antihypertensive agents on survival, quality of life (QOL), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)Estimate the relative effectiveness of the antihypertensive agents on survival, quality of life (QOL), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) Estimate the resource usage associated with these agentsEstimate the resource usage associated with these agents Use this information for a cost-effectiveness analysis with cost per quality-adjusted life-year as the unit of analysisUse this information for a cost-effectiveness analysis with cost per quality-adjusted life-year as the unit of analysis ALLHAT

Randomized Design of ALLHAT BP Trial 42,418 High-risk hypertensive patients Consent / Randomize AmlodipineChlorthalidoneDoxazosinLisinopril Follow until death or end of study (4-8 years, mean 4.9 years) ALLHAT

Amlodipine / ChlorthalidoneLisinopril / Chlorthalidone CHD0.98 (0.91, 1.08)0.99 (0.91, 1.08) Death0.96 (0.89, 1.02)1.00 (0.94, 1.08) Combined CHD 1.00 (0.94, 1.07)1.05 (0.98, 1.11) Stroke0.93 (0.82, 1.06)1.15 (1.02, 1.30) Combined CVD 1.04 (0.99, 1.09)1.10 (1.05, 1.16) HF1.38 (1.25, 1.52)1.19 (1.07, 1.31) Summary of Outcomes Relative Risks and 95% CI ALLHAT

Total and Cause-Specific Mortality ALLHAT ChlorAmlodp*Lisinp* Total17.3%16.8% %0.90 CVD8.0%8.5% %0.39 Non-CVD8.9%8.0% %0.57 Cancer4.3%3.8% %0.86 Accident / suicide / homicide 0.6%0.4% %0.14 * Compared with chlorthalidone Are the differences between chlorthalidone & amlodipine real? Are they plausible?

Overall Conclusions ALLHAT Because of the superiority of thiazide-type diuretics in preventing one or more major forms of CVD and their lower cost, they should be the drugs of choice for first-step antihypertensive drug therapy.

Cost Effectiveness  Although overall outcomes are best and drug acquisition costs are least for chlorthalidone, is it the most “cost-effective”? Traditionally, CE outcomes are restricted to survival and quality of life, and costs include ALL major treatment costs.  Specifically: Cost-effectiveness = difference in total treatment costs divided by the difference in life-years (LYs) CE = [Cost Drug A – Cost Drug B] / [LY Drug A – LY Drug B] OR Difference in cost divided by the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). CE = [Cost Drug A – Cost Drug B] / [QALY Drug A – QALY Drug B]

Health Outcomes Survival time (life-years) during the trial = the area under Kaplan-Meier survival curve Survival time after the trial –Relative risk of death for chlorthalidone treated patients compared with the U.S. population (matched to gender and mean age) during the course of the trial. –Assumed relative risk (0.65) remained constant over patient’s lifetime. –Proportional hazards model to determine the risk ratio for death during the trial for lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone and for amlodipine vs. chlorthalidone. –Assumed that the differences in mortality would approach 0 at a relative rate of 10% per year. Sensitivity analyses - varied persistence of drug effects after trial from 0 years to patient’s entire lifetime.

Quality-Adjusted Survival ALLHAT collected annual estimate of quality of life (0-100 scale). Using a Torrance transformation 1 these estimates are transformed into QOL utilities whose distribution better matches standard utility values (e.g., time-tradeoff or standard gamble). Unlike an analog scale, these standard utilities are elicited by having patients tradeoff quality of life for length of life. Mean utility over time in ALLHAT is determined for each patient. An overall mean is determined for each trial arm. Quality-adjusted survival = mean utility x survival during the trial. Following the trial period, we assumed that quality of life remained constant for each patient until death. 1 Torrance G. Socio-Economic Planning Sci. 1976;10:

Major Direct Medical Costs Societal perspective, even though indirect costs not incorporated Hospital costs –Medicare (MEDPAR) and VA (Patient Treatment File) for trial participants. –Cost of hospitalization = DRG-specific Medicare case weight x conversion factor for –Professional fees - increase hospital costs by 25%. –Patients not in Medicare and not in the VA system (17%) - multi-step estimation procedure. ALLHAT recorded use of medication and number of office visits. Drug costs = Median wholesale price (2004, common dosage) + $7 per 100 dispensing fee Office visit cost = Medicare intermediate follow-up office visit ($50) Medical costs = hospital costs + drug costs + office visits

Medical Costs: Analyses Cumulative medical costs during the trial - actuarial method of Etzioni Lifetime cost of care –Assumed that inpatient costs, outpatient costs, and drug costs remained constant following year six of the trial. –Additional cost of care per patient per year to account for the cost of non-hypertension related care - increased with age - based on U.S. national health care expenditure data Adjusted all costs to 2004 dollars using the medical component of the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics). All cost and survival outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Main Model Inputs – Relative Risk and Quality of Life Baseline ValueRange Tested Relative risk of death Chlor vs US population – 1.0 Amlod vs chlorthalidone0.972* Lisin vs chlorthalidone1.001* Duration of differences following the trial Decreases 10% per year 0 years to lifetime Quality of life (ALLHAT average over 6 years) Chlorthalidone0.8484* Amlodipine0.8517* Lisinopril0.8480* * Uncertainty evaluated with bootstrap sampling using trial data

Main Model Inputs – Drug Costs, Office Visit Costs, and Discount Rate Baseline ValueRange Tested Drug cost per day ($) – average wholesale price (Redbook 2004) Chlorthalidone (25 mg)$0.19$0.05 – 0.19 Amlodipine (10 mg)$2.47$1.50 – 2.47 Lisinopril (40 mg)$1.65$ Cost of office visits ($%) Level 3 CPT for established patient Medicare allowed charge (CPT 99213) $50$25 – 100 Annual discount rate for costs and utilities 3%0-5% CPT = Current Procedural Terminology

Sensitivity Analysis Varied all parameters through the specific ranges. Parameter is sensitive if cost-effectiveness ratio doubled above baseline. Separate analysis - assumed that patients with new-onset diabetes had increased risk of death (RR 2.0) and increased annual costs ($2000 per year) following conclusion of the trial. Although there is no universally accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness, $50,000 per QALY gained is commonly used.

Results – Survival ChlorAmlodLisin Unadjusted Survival during trial A/C: HR 0.96 (0.89 – 1.03) L/C: HR 1.01 (0.94 – 1.08) 5.20 years+6 days (-2 to +14) -2 days (-10 to +6) Estimated lifetime survival* 13.2 years+37 days (-29 to +95) -2 days (-67 to +62) Quality-adjusted † Survival during trial 4.48 years  years  years  0.63 Estimated lifetime survival 11.9 years+37 days (-10 to +95) +7 days (-47 to +58) * In 500 bootstrap samples, survival was longest for the amlodipine group in 73% of samples, for the chlorthalidone group in 14%, and for the lisinopril group in 13%. † The mean quality of life value (0-100) over the six years of the trial was not significantly different among trial arms.

In-Trial Costs - Hospitalization Mean Cost – Chlor Difference in Cost vs. Chlor AmlodLisin Hospitalization ($) Heart failure (NS) Ischemic HD1, (NS)+87 (NS) Stroke240-3 (NS)+54 Other CVD988+1 (NS)+50 (NS) Cancer1, (NS)+225) Other non-CVD4, (NS) Total8, (NS)+572 NS = 95% CI includes 0

In-Trial & Lifetime Costs – Drug, Outpatient, & Total Mean Cost – Chlor Difference in Cost vs. Chlor AmlodLisin Drug cost ($) Study drug618+2,681+1,383 Other drug1, (NS)+241 Total1,786+2,698+1,624 Outpatient visit costs ($) 1,057-9 (NS)+28 (NS) Total in-trial cost ($)11,447+2,519+2,224 Lifetime cost ($)53,536+4,802+3,700 NS = 95% CI includes 0

In-Trial Cost-Effectiveness for Different First-Step Antihypertensive Treatments TreatmentCost Incremental Cost Years of Life Incremental Life-Years Incremental Cost- Effectiveness – $ / Life-Year Chlor$11, Lisin$13,671+$2, Dominated † Amlod*$13,966+$2, $160,000 * Amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone – lisinopril eliminated by dominance (chlorthalidone more effective and less expensive). † Costs are greater and effectiveness is less than chlorthalidone.

Results – Lifetime Cost-Effectiveness $53,500 for the chlorthalidone treated patients $4,800 higher for patients treated with amlodipine and $3,700 higher for patients treated with lisinopril Bootstrap resampling - chlorthalidone treated patients had the lowest in trial and lifetime costs in all (500/500) samples. TreatmentCost Incremental Cost Years of Life Incremental Life-Years Incremental Cost- Effectiveness – $ / Life-Year Chlor$53, Lisin$57,236+$3, Dominated † Amlod*$58,338+4, $48,400 * Amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone – lisinopril eliminated by dominance (chlorthalidone more effective and less expensive). † Costs are greater and effectiveness is less than chlorthalidone.

Sensitivity to Daily Cost of Drug Therapy Amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone - $37,000 per life year gained. If amlodipine costs were reduced by 50% with chlorthalidone drug costs unchanged, then the incremental cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone dropped to $58,100 during the first six years and to $22,500 over the patient’s lifetime.

Sensitivity to society’s threshold for cost- effectiveness on the optimal first-step treatment for hypertension – 100 bootstrap samples There is substantial uncertainty in the appropriate first-step therapy, with no treatment being preferred in over 90% of bootstrap samples. $20,000 threshold - chlorthalidone preferred in 74% of samples $100,000 threshold - amlodipine preferred in 63% of samples

Impact of Incident Diabetes New-onset diabetes at 4 years is more frequent in chlorthalidone group (11%) than in the amlodipine group (9.3%) Assume patients who developed diabetes incurred additional cost of $2000 per year Increased risk of death (relative risk 2.0) after the conclusion of the trial Adjusted cost-effectiveness (amlodipine vs chlorthalidone): –$40,200 per year of life gained –$35,600 per quality-adjusted life year gained

Impact of Race Non-Black participants --Lisinopril dominated amlodipine in base case –Life-years slightly greater for lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone (0.09 years) - $34,600 per life-year gained –Preferences in bootstrap resampling: Lisinopril 44% Chlorthalidone 30% Amlodipine 25% Black participants –Amlodipine dominated lisinopril –Life-years slightly greater for amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone (0.14) - $38,000 per life-year gained –Preferences in bootstrap resampling: Amlodipine 59% Chlorthalidone 45% Lisinopril 1%

Conclusions Substantial savings can be achieved by using chlorthalidone instead of amlodipine or lisinopril as the first drug for the treatment of hypertension. Non-significant mortality benefit with amlodipine, if real, could make it economically attractive compared with chlorthalidone. Small survival differences may have an important influence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals Even a large trial such as ALLHAT may be underpowered to determine the most cost- effective treatment.

Lessons Learned – About Power A randomized trial with power to exclude “clinically important differences” in survival will often have inadequate power to determine the most cost-effective treatment. –99,000+ patients required for 80% power to demonstrate that amlodipine was not a cost- effective alternative to chlorthalidone at the $50,000 per life-year gained threshold.

Lessons Learned ProblemsPossible solutions Developing the base caseUse many sources and experts Collecting QOL dataIn a large, simple trial, one may consider better methods for QOL Sources & ranges of values for various costs Long-term trial cost may change; direct medical costs only vs additional costs Imputing dataConsider several methods to check for consistency Sensitivity analysesShould look at various scenarios Projections of costs and effects beyond the data collection period Could consider using further follow-up data, e.g., passive surveillance

The Paradox How can the results imply that amlodipine is more cost-effective than chlorthalidone ? –The drug is more expensive than chlorthalidone –The aggregate of pre-specified disease-specific outcomes point to amlodipine being less effective –Total mortality and QOL differences are small and insignificant –Favorable differences in some non-CVD causes of death are not biologically plausible

Extra slides

Major Direct Medical Costs Societal perspective, even though indirect costs not incorporated Hospital costs –Medicare (MEDPAR) and VA (Patient Treatment File) hospitalization data obtained for trial participants. –Cost of hospitalization = DRG-specific Medicare case weight x conversion factor for –Account for professional fees by increasing hospital costs by 25%. –Patients not in Medicare and not in the VA system (17%) - multi-step estimation procedure. Probability of having inpatient costs was determined for the Medicare and VA patients adjusting for age, gender, race, diabetes, and use of the VA system. Logistic model  probability of inpatient costs for those not in the VA or Medicare. For Medicare and VA patients with hospitalizations - estimated log-linear regression model of annual hospital costs that included age, race, gender, diabetes, and use of the VA health system. Log costs were transformed back to costs using a smearing algorithm. Estimated costs from this model x probability of having hospital costs = estimated hospital costs for those not in Medicare or the VA system. Medical costs = hospital costs + drug costs + office visits

Major Direct Medical Costs ALLHAT recorded use of medication and number of office visits. Drug costs –Median wholesale price Drug Topics Red Book - most common dosage –Dispensing fee of $7.00 for each 100 doses. The cost of an office visit –Medicare reimbursement - intermediate intensity follow-up office visit ($50) Cumulative medical costs during the trial - actuarial method of Etzioni –Product of the yearly cost of care for survivors and the Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival to adjust for censoring. Lifetime cost of care –Assumed that inpatient costs, outpatient costs, and drug costs remained constant following year six of the trial. –Additional cost of care per patient per year to account for the cost of non- hypertension related care - increased with age - based on U.S. national health care expenditure data Adjusted all costs to 2004 dollars using the medical component of the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics). All cost and survival outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Incremental costs and outcomes of amlodipine vs. chlorthalidone arms for 500 bootstrap samples. Amlodipine was more expensive in all (100%) samples, amlodipine had a better outcome in 84%, and the cost per life-year (LY) gained was less than $50,000 in 49%. Points to the right of the diagonal line indicate samples where amlodipine was cost- effective at a threshold of $50,000 per LY gained.

Incremental costs and outcomes of lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone arms for 500 bootstrap samples. Lisinopril was more expensive in all (100%) samples, lisinopril had a better outcome in 45%, and the cost per life year (LY) gained was less than $50,000 in 18%. Points to the right of the diagonal line indicate samples where lisinopril was cost- effective at a threshold of $50,000 per LY gained.

Sensitivity Analyses Sensitivity to the daily cost of drug therapy. –Amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone - $37,000 per life year gained. –If amlodipine costs were reduced by 50% with chlorthalidone drug costs unchanged, then the incremental cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone dropped to $58,100 during the first six years and to $22,500 over the patient’s lifetime. Sensitivity to society’s threshold for cost-effectiveness. –$20,000 threshold - chlorthalidone preferred in 74% of samples –$100,000 threshold - amlodipine preferred in 63% of samples Additional cost associated with diabetes –Additional costs $2000 per year –Increased risk of death (relative risk 2.0) after the conclusion of the trial –Cost-effectiveness of amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone = $40,200 per year of life gained and $35,600 per quality-adjusted year of life gained.