Cost-Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Deprescribing in Primary Care: a Markov Modelling Study Using Data From the OPTiMISE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications for older patients with normal blood pressure is recommended by some clinical guidelines, where the potential harms of treatment may outweigh the benefits. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: A Markov patient-level simulation was undertaken to model the effect of withdrawing one antihypertensive compared with usual care, over a life-time horizon. Model population characteristics were estimated using data from the OPTiMISE antihypertensive deprescribing trial, and the effects of blood pressure changes on outcomes were derived from the literature. Health-related quality of life was modeled in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and presented as costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, medication reduction resulted in lower costs than usual care (mean difference £185), but also lower QALYs (mean difference 0.062) per patient over a life-time horizon. Usual care was cost-effective at £2975 per QALY gained (more costly, but more effective). Medication reduction resulted more heart failure and stroke/TIA events but fewer adverse events. Medication reduction may be the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY, where the baseline absolute risk of serious drug-related adverse events was ≥7.7% a year (compared with 1.7% in the base-case). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was uncertainty around many of the assumptions underpinning this model, these findings suggest that antihypertensive medication reduction should not be attempted in many older patients with controlled systolic blood pressure. For populations at high risk of adverse effects, deprescribing may be beneficial, but a targeted approach would be required in routine practice.

Effect of Antihypertensive Medication Reduction vs Usual Care on Short-term Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension Aged 80 Years and Older: The OPTIMISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Genetic Abnormalities in Fetal Ultrasound Anomalies: An Economic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: In light of the prospective Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE) study, this paper aimed to determine the additional costs of using exome sequencing (ES) alongside or in place of chromosomal microarray (CMA) in a fetus with an identified congenital anomaly. METHODS: A decision tree was populated using data from a prospective cohort of women undergoing invasive diagnostic testing. Four testing strategies were evaluated: CMA, ES, CMA followed by ES ("stepwise"); CMA and ES combined. RESULTS: When ES is priced at GBP 2,100 (EUR 2,407/USD 2,694), performing ES alone prenatally would cost a further GBP 31,410 (EUR 36,001/USD 40,289) per additional genetic diagnosis, whereas the stepwise would cost a further GBP 24,657 (EUR 28,261/USD 31,627) per additional genetic diagnosis. When ES is priced at GBP 966 (EUR 1,107/USD 1,239), performing ES alone prenatally would cost a further GBP 11,532 (EUR 13,217/USD 14,792) per additional genetic diagnosis, whereas the stepwise would cost a further additional GBP 11,639 (EUR 13,340/USD 14,929) per additional genetic diagnosis. The sub-group analysis suggests that performing stepwise on cases indicative of multiple anomalies at ultrasound scan (USS) compared to cases indicative of a single anomaly, is more cost-effective compared to using ES alone. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Performing ES alongside CMA is more cost-effective than ES alone, which can potentially lead to improvements in pregnancy management. The direct effects of test results on pregnancy outcomes were not examined; therefore, further research is recommended to examine changes on the projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.