Economic benefits associated with beta blocker persistence in the treatment of hypertension: a retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between medical costs and persistence with beta blockers among hypertensive patients, and to quantify persistence related medical cost differences with nebivolol, which is associated with improved tolerability, versus other beta blockers. METHODS: Adults who initiated hypertension treatment with a beta blocker were identified from the MarketScan * claims database (2008-2012). Patients were classified based on their first beta blocker use: nebivolol, atenolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and other beta blockers. Patients with compelling indications for atenolol, carvedilol or metoprolol (acute coronary syndrome and congestive heart failure) were excluded. Patients enrolled in health maintenance organization or capitated point of service insurance plans were also excluded. Persistence was defined as continuous use of the index drug (<60 day gap). The average effect of persistence on medical costs (2012 USD) was estimated using generalized linear models (GLMs). Regression estimates were used to predict medical cost differences associated with persistence between nebivolol and the other cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 587,424 hypertensive patients met the inclusion criteria. Each additional month of persistence with any one beta blocker was associated with $152.51 in all-cause medical cost savings; continuous treatment for 1 year was associated with $1585.98 in all-cause medical cost savings. Patients treated with nebivolol had longer persistence during the 1 year study period (median: 315 days) than all other beta blockers (median: 156-292 days). Longer persistence with nebivolol translated into $305.74 all-cause medical cost savings relative to all other beta blockers. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalizable to hypertensive patients with acute coronary syndrome or congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Longer persistence with beta blockers for the treatment of hypertension was associated with lower medical costs. There may be greater cost savings due to better persistence with nebivolol than other beta blockers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nebivolol and metoprolol in essential hypertension: a pharmacoeconomic comparison of antihypertensive efficacy of beta blockers.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness and safety of nebivolol with sustained-release metoprolol in reducing blood pressure by 1 mm of Hg per day in hypertensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, open label, observational analysis of cost-effectiveness, in a questionnaire-based fashion to compare the cost of nebivolol (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg) and sustained released metoprolol succinate (25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg) in hypertensive patients using either of the two drugs. A total of 60 newly detected drug naïve hypertensive patients were considered for the comparison, of which 30 patients were prescribed nebivolol and the other 30 were prescribed metoprolol succinate as per the recommended dosage. Based on the data, statistical analysis was carried out using GraphPad Prism 5 and MS Excel Spreadsheet 2007. RESULT: The cost of reducing 1 mm of Hg blood pressure per day with nebivolol was 0.60, 0.70, and 1.06 INR, whereas that of metoprolol succinate was 0.93, 1.18, and 1.25 INR at their respective equivalent doses, hence significantly lower with the nebivolol group as compared to the metoprolol group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This pharmacoeconomic analysis shows that nebivolol is more cost-effective as compared to metoprolol when the cost per reduction in blood pressure per day is considered. This may affect the patients economically during their long-term use of these molecules for the treatment of hypertension.

Economic impact of switching from metoprolol to nebivolol for hypertension treatment: a retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the real-world economic impact of switching hypertensive patients from metoprolol, a commonly prescribed, generic, non-vasodilatory ß1-blocker, to nebivolol, a branded-protected vasodilatory ß1-blocker. METHODS: Retrospective analysis with a pre-post study design was conducted using the MarketScan database (2007-2011). Hypertensive patients continuously treated with metoprolol for ≥6 months (pre-period) and then switched to nebivolol for ≥6 months (post-period) were identified. The index date for switching was defined as the first nebivolol dispensing date. Data were collected for the two 6-month periods pre- and post-switching. Monthly healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs pre- and post-switching were calculated and compared using Wilcoxon test and paired t-test. Medical costs at different years were inflated to the 2011 dollar. RESULTS: In total, 2259 patients (mean age: 60 years; male: 52%; cardiovascular [CV] disease: 37%) met the selection criteria. Switching to nebivolol was associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of all-cause hospitalization (-33%; p < 0.01), CV-related hospitalizations (-60%; p < 0.01), and outpatient visits (-7%; p < 0.01). Monthly inpatient costs were reduced by $111 (p < 0.01), while monthly drug costs increased by $52 (p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were found in overall costs and costs of outpatient or ER visits. Sensitivity analyses, conducted using various lengths of medication exposure, controlling for spill-over effect or excluding patients with compelling indications for metoprolol, all found some level of reduction in resource utilization and no significant difference in overall healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study suggests that switching from metoprolol to nebivolol is associated with an increase in medication costs and significant reductions in hospitalizations and outpatient visits upon switching, resulting in an overall neutral effect on healthcare costs. These results may be interpreted with caution due to lack of a comparator group and confounding control caused by design and limitations inherent in insurance claims data.

Clinical and economic aspects of the use of nebivolol in the treatment of elderly patients with heart failure.

Heart failure is a common and disabling condition with morbidity and mortality that increase dramatically with advancing age. Large observational studies, retrospective subgroup analyses and meta-analyses of clinical trials in systolic heart failure, and recently published randomized studies have provided data supporting the use of beta-blockers as a baseline therapy in heart failure in the elderly. Despite the available evidence about beta-blockers, this therapy is still less frequently used in elderly compared to younger patients. Nebivolol is a third-generation cardioselective beta-blocker with L-arginine/nitric oxide-induced vasodilatory properties, approved in Europe and several other countries for the treatment of essential hypertension, and in Europe for the treatment of stable, mild, or moderate chronic heart failure, in addition to standard therapies in elderly patients aged 70 years old or older. The effects of nebivolol on left ventricular function in elderly patients with chronic heart failure (ENECA) and the study of effects of nebivolol intervention on outcomes and rehospitalization in seniors with heart failure (SENIORS) have been specifically aimed to assess the efficacy of beta-blockade in elderly heart failure patients. The results of these two trials demonstrate that nebivolol is well tolerated and effective in reducing mortality and morbidity in older patients, and that the beneficial clinical effect is present also in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Moreover, nebivolol appears to be significantly cost-effective when prescribed in these patients. However, further targeted studies are needed to better define the efficacy as well as safety profile in frail and older patients with comorbid diseases.

Nebivolol: a third-generation beta-blocker for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Nebivolol is a third-generation beta(1)-selective beta-blocker that is approved for the treatment of hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the clinical pharmacology of nebivolol and its efficacy and safety profile in clinical studies of hypertension (the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indication) and heart failure (off-label use). METHODS: Pertinent articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE and Current Contents from 1966 through December 15, 2008, using the terms nebivolol, drug interaction, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacology. The reference lists of the identified publications were reviewed for additional references. Abstracts presented at meetings of the American Heart Association and the American Society of Hypertension from 2006 through 2008 were also reviewed. All human clinical trials were included, regardless of design. RESULTS: Twelve published clinical trials were identified that evaluated the use of nebivolol in the management of hypertension; 1 was placebo controlled, 1 was placebo and active controlled, and 10 involved direct comparisons with other antihypertensive agents. Nebivolol was reported to be as effective in lowering blood pressure (BP) as other beta-blockers (atenolol and bisoprolol), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (lisinopril and enalapril), the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan, and calcium channel blockers (nifedipine and amlodipine). No published studies were identified that evaluated the effect of nebivolol on long-term cardiovascular outcomes. In data from a study in heart failure, nebivolol was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization at 12 months (P < 0.05). In comparative clinical studies, nebivolol appeared to be well tolerated relative to the other antihypertensive agents studied. The most commonly reported adverse events with nebivolol were fatigue (4%-79%), headache (2%-24%), paresthesia (7%-13%), bradycardia (6%-11%), rhinitis (1%-7%), and dizziness (2%-5%). Because of differences in its pharmacologic properties, nebivolol may have potential advantages in patients who are unable to tolerate traditional beta-blockers (eg, patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or men who experience erectile dysfunction while taking antihypertensive therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Nebivolol is a cardioselective beta-blocker that has been reported to be efficacious and well tolerated for achieving BP control in patients with hypertension. Preliminary evidence suggests a potential for reduced mortality in patients with heart failure.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of nebivolol compared with standard care in elderly patients with heart failure: an individual patient-based simulation model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The SENIORS trial demonstrated that nebivolol is effective in the treatment of heart failure in elderly patients (e.g. > or = 70 years). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of nebivolol compared with standard treatment. METHODS: An individual patient-simulation model based on a Markov modelling framework was developed to compare costs and outcomes for nebivolol and standard care in patients with heart failure starting treatment at the age of 70 years. Health states were defined by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and death. At a given NYHA class and a given cycle, patients could die, be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease or remain stable. Risks for these events were derived from individual patient data from the SENIORS trial. The risk of each event in a given cycle was based on the subject's baseline characteristics and time in the current health state. The economic analysis was conducted from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime horizon. The costs (euro; year 2006 values) considered were drug costs for nebivolol and other cardiac drugs, costs of GP visits, outpatient specialist visits and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the total cost per patient was euro6740 and euro9288, and QALYs were 5.194 and 5.843 for patients aged 70 years at the start of treatment for the standard treatment and nebivolol groups, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro3926 (95% CI 3731, 4159) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care.

Nebivolol: a new antihypertensive agent.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, safety, economic issues, dosage, and place in therapy of nebivolol are reviewed. SUMMARY: Nebivolol is a novel, highly selective beta(1)-receptor blocker that causes peripheral vasodilation by increasing the production and release of nitric oxide and decreasing nitric oxide degradation. The nitric oxide-mediated effects of nebivolol lead to decreases in systemic vascular resistance and large artery stiffness and possible reversal of endothelial dysfunction. Clinical studies have shown nebivolol to be at least as effective at lowering blood pressure as other antihypertensive drugs, including other beta-blockers. The most frequent adverse events reported in nebivolol clinical trials were transient headache, dizziness, and tiredness. In a large trial in patients with heart failure, nebivolol was shown to reduce the composite endpoint of mortality and hospitalizations. Nebivolol is highly lipophilic and is rapidly absorbed after oral administration. The nebivolol dose most commonly used in clinical trials for hypertension was 5 mg daily; no significant further decreases in blood pressure were shown with higher doses. The average dose in clinical trials for patients with heart failure was 5-10 mg daily. Dosage adjustments are recommended in elderly patients and patients with severe renal impairment. CONCLUSION: Nebivolol is a unique, highly selective beta-blocker with vasodilatory properties mediated through the nitric oxide pathway; it may be useful in the treatment of uncomplicated mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and in patients with heart failure.

Pharmacoeconomic benefits of antihypertensive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Effective blood pressure reduction reduces cardiovascular risk and prevents later complications. OBJECTIVE: To consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of antihypertensive therapy. SUMMARY: Every managed care pharmacist should consider the balance of cost and benefit of antihypertensive therapies, ensuring that best treatment options for patients with the lowest cost to the health care system are available and implemented. Pharmacists must also evaluate the direct and indirect cost associated with risk reduction for stroke and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSION: Using an interdisciplinary approach to hypertension treatment, pharmacists can assume a major role in detection, management, and control of hypertensive patients. As the medical teams' drug expert, they will be expected to recommend best treatment options for effective blood pressure control and cardiovascular risk reduction.