Objective To investigate the cost‑effectiveness of valsartan, amlodipine besylate, and valsartan amlodipine in the treatment of elderly patients with hypertension. Methods The clinical data of 110 elderly patients with hypertension were retrospectively analyzed, and they were divided into group A (valsartan) (n=33), group B (amlodipine) (n=36), or group C (valsartan amlodipine) (n=41) according to their antihypertensive drugs. The treatment efficacy and blood pressure levels(24-hour systolic blood pressure [24hSBP], 24-hour diastolic blood pressure [24hDBP], night-time systolic blood pressure [nSBP], night-time diastolic blood pressure [nDBP], day-time systolic blood pressure [dSBP], and day-time diastolic blood pressure [dDBP]) before treatment and after 4 weeks of treatment were compared between the three groups, the total incidences of adverse reactions during the treatment in the three groups were recorded, and the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the three groups were compared. Results After 4 weeks of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the total effective rate, 24hSBP, 24hDBP, nSBP, nDBP, dSBP, dDBP, or the total incidence of adverse reactions between the three groups (all P>0.05). The cost and CER of groups B, A, and C increased successively (all P<0.05); among the three groups, group B had the smallest decrease in 24hSBP, but the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05); taking group B as the control, the ICER of group A was 125.19 yuan, and the ICER of group C was 98.78 yuan. Conclusion Valsartan, amlodipine besylate, and valsartan amlodipine can effectively treat elderly patients with hypertension, with comparable safety; among which amlodipine besylate has the lowest cost, and valsartan amlodipine also has more pharmacoeconomic advantages than valsartan in the treatment.

无