Nicardipine or Nitroprusside for Postoperative Blood Pressure Control in Infants After Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease: Single-Center Retrospective Noninferiority and Cost Analysis, 2016-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Postoperative hypertension frequently occurs after surgery for congenital heart disease. Given safety concerns when using calcium channel blockers in infants along with the cost and side-effect profile of nitroprusside, we retrospectively assessed our experience of using nicardipine and nitroprusside for postoperative blood pressure control in infants who underwent surgery for congenital heart disease. We also investigated the cost difference between the medications. DESIGN: This study was a single-center retrospective, pre-post chart review of patients who had surgery for congenital heart disease between 2016 and 2020. The primary aim was a noninferiority comparison of achievement of blood pressure goal at 1-hour post-initiation of an antihypertensive agent. Secondary comparisons included achievement of blood pressure goal at 2 hours after medication initiation, Vasoactive-Inotropic Score (VIS), and blood transfusion, crystalloid volume, and calcium needs. SETTING: Academic quaternary-care center. PATIENTS: Infants under 1 year old who required treatment for hypertension with nitroprusside ( n = 71) or nicardipine ( n = 52) within 24 hours of surgery for congenital heart disease. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We failed to identify any difference in proportion of patients that achieved blood pressure control at 1-hour after medication initiation (nitroprusside 52% vs. nicardipine 54%; p = 0.86), with nicardipine noninferior to nitroprusside within a 15% margin. Of patients who did not achieve control at 1-hour post-medication initiation, receiving nicardipine was associated with blood pressure control at 2 hours post-medication initiation (79% vs. 38%; p = 0.003). We also failed to identify an association between antihypertensive types and mean VIS scores, blood transfusion volumes, crystalloid volumes, and quantities of calcium administered. Index cost of using nitroprusside was 16 times higher than using nicardipine, primarily due to difference in wholesale cost. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience of achieving blood pressure control in infants after surgery for congenital heart disease (2016-2020), antihypertensive treatment with nicardipine was noninferior to nitroprusside. Furthermore, nicardipine use was significantly less expensive than nitroprusside. Our contemporary practice is therefore to use nicardipine in preference to nitroprusside.

Whose patient is it? The path to multidisciplinary management of achalasia.

In the past decade, the introduction of high-resolution manometry and the classification of achalasia into subtypes has made possible to accurately diagnose the disease and predict the response to treatment for its different subtypes. However, even to date, in an era of exponential medical progress and increased insight in disease mechanisms, treatment of patients with achalasia is still rather simplistic and mostly confined to mechanical disruption of the lower esophageal sphincter by different means. In addition, there is partial consensus on what is the best form of available treatments for patients with achalasia. Herein, we provide a comprehensive outlook to a general approach to the patient with suspected achalasia by: 1) defining the modern evaluation process; 2) describing the diagnostic value of high-resolution manometry and the Chicago Classification in predicting treatment outcomes and 3) discussing the available treatment options, considering the patient conditions, alternatives available to both the surgeon and the gastroenterologist, and the burden to the health care system. It is our hope that such discussion will contribute to value-based management of achalasia through promoting a leaner clinical flow of patients at all points of care.

Clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in hypertensive patients treated with a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/valsartan.

This retrospective claims database analysis compared two strategies of hypertension treatment in outpatient, emergency, and inpatient departments: a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine/valsartan vs free combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (ARB+CCB group). After a mean follow-up of 15.2 months, the FDC group had significantly lower total healthcare costs (US $1844 vs US $2158; P<.001) and hospitalization rates (14.57% vs 18.43%; P<.001), a higher proportion of days covered (80.35% vs 72.57%; P<.001), and better persistence (266 vs 225 days; P<.001) compared with the ARB+CCB group. The FDC group also had a better major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.94; P=.003) and decreased rates of heart failure (2.12% vs 3.26%; P<.001), malignant dysrhythmia (0.18% vs 0.42%; P=.021), and percutaneous coronary intervention (0.76% vs 1.26%; P=.015). Compared with free combinations of ARB+CCB, an FDC of amlodipine/valsartan improved MACE-free survival and medication compliance and decreased total healthcare costs and hospitalization rates in hypertensive patients.

[Generic drugs and the consumption trends of antihypertensives in Morocco]. / Les médicaments génériques et l'évolution de la consommation des antihypertenseurs au Maroc.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the evolution of consumption of antihypertensive drugs generic among 1991-2010, to assess the impacts after the institution of Mandatory Health Insurance and the marketing of generic drugs. METHODS: We used sales data from the Moroccan subsidiary of IMS Health Intercontinental Marketing Service. RESULTS: Consumption of generic antihypertensive drugs increased from 0.08 to 10.65 DDD/1 000 inhabitants/day between 1991 and 2010. In 2010, generic of the calcium channel blockers (CCBs) represented 4.08 DDD/1 000 inhabitants/day (82.09%), followed by angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) by 2.40 DDD/1 000 inhabitants/day (48.29%). The generics market of CCBs is the most dominant and represented in 2010, 79.21% in volume and 62.58% in value. CONCLUSION: In developing countries like Morocco, the generic drug is a key element for access to treatment especially for the poor population.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with amlodipine/renin-angiotensin system blocker combinations.

OBJECTIVES: Since treatment regimen type can influence adherence and other outcomes, this study examined adherence, cardiovascular events, and economic outcomes in patients with hypertension treated with fixed-dose combination (FDC) amlodipine/olmesartan (AML/OM), FDC AML/benazepril (AML/BEN), and loose-dose combination AML plus angiotensin II receptor blockers (LDC AML/ARBs). METHODS: Commercial health plan enrollees aged at least 18 years with index claim(s) for AML/OM, AML/BEN, or LDC AML/ARB were identified. Absence of study drug 6 months pre index, and continuous enrollment for at least 12 months post index were required. Descriptive analyses were executed to make comparisons between treatments, as well as multivariate models adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including propensity for assignment to study drug. RESULTS: Descriptive results suggested mean follow-up adherence was higher in the AML/OM cohort [proportion of days covered (PDC) = 0.63] compared with the AML/BEN (PDC = 0.55; p < 0.001) and LDC AML/ARB cohorts (PDC = 0.34; p < 0.001). The proportion of individuals with an incident follow-up cardiovascular event composite was lower in the AML/OM cohort versus the AML/BEN and LDC AML/ARB cohorts (5.94% versus 7.85% and 16.89% respectively). Adjusted Cox models suggested that patients initiated on LDC AML/ARB (hazard ratio 1.35; p < 0.001), but not on AML/BEN, were at greater risk of a follow-up cardiovascular event (composite) compared with AML/OM. Adjusted generalized linear models suggested that mean follow-up per-member-per-month overall costs were higher in the AML/BEN (cost ratio = 1.169; p < 0.001; unadjusted mean cost US$780) and LDC AML/ARB cohorts (cost ratio = 1.286; p < 0.001; unadjusted mean cost US $1394) compared with the AML/OM cohort (unadjusted mean cost US $740). CONCLUSION: The results suggested that treatment with FDC AML/OM was associated with greater likelihood of adherence and lower overall costs than with FDC AML/BEN and LDC AML/ARB, and lower risk of cardiovascular event composite versus LDC AML/ARB.

[Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy of patients in primary care with either a statutory or private health insurance]. / Antihypertensive medikamentöse Therapie von gesetzlich und privat versicherten Patienten in der Primärversorgung.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Germany, hypertension has a prevalence of about 20%. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are closely associated with hypertension. Therefore, antihypertensive medical treatment is of crucial importance. Currently, five groups of drugs for the medical treatment of hypertension are available: diuretics, beta-receptor blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. Besides medical considerations for the treatment of hypertension costs of treatment and other economic aspects become more and more important. Within this article, the antihypertensive treatment of insurants of the statutory health insurance and the private health insurance is compared with regard to the medical treatment and associated costs. METHODS: The analyzed data derive from the general practice morbidity research network CONTENT (CONTinuous morbidity registration Epidemiologic NeTwork). The implementation of this network is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) for a continuous registration of health-care utilization, morbidity, course of disease, and outcome parameters within primary care. RESULTS: Altogether 4,842 patients from the participating general practitioners were regularly treated with antihypertensive drugs in 2007 and corresponding episodes were documented within electronic medical records. The proportion of insurants of the private health insurance was 7.6%. The costs of the antihypertensive medical treatment within the total sample in 2007 constituted 1.03 million Euros overall and per patient on average 212.82 Euros. Although the regarded sample of private health insurants was less morbid and the sum of defined daily doses (DDDs) within the observation period was notably lower (582.6 vs. 703.1; p < 0.0001), the annual therapy costs of the private health insurants compared to the statutory health insurants were 35.2% higher (280.29 Euros vs. 207.29 Euros; p < 0.0001). Hence, costs per DDD for antihypertensive medical treatment for private health insurants were 63.2% higher than for statutory health insurants. This refers to the great proportion of angiotensin II receptor blockers as well as the low proportion of generic drugs prescribed for private health insurants. CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment with original drugs and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers is an expensive option. Based on the actual state of knowledge it must be questioned critically whether this constitutes a superior treatment option concerning the potential for lowering high blood pressure levels and organ protection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hypertension treatment: controlled release nifedipine and candesartan low-dose combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension--the Nifedipine and Candesartan Combination (NICE-Combi) Study.

Societal interest in pharmaco-economic analysis is increasing in Japan. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of low-dose combination therapy with controlled release nifedipine plus candesartan and up-titrated monotherapy with candesartan was estimated, based on the results of the NICE-Combi study. The NICE-Combi study was a double-blind, parallel arm, randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of low-dose combination therapy of controlled release nifedipine (20 mg/day) plus candesartan (8 mg/day) vs. up-titrated monotherapy of candesartan (12 mg/day) on blood pressure control in Japanese patients with mild to severe essential hypertension who were not sufficiently controlled by the conventional dose of candesartan (8 mg/ day). The incremental cost effectiveness of each cohort during the 8-week randomization period was compared, from the perspective of a third-party payer (i.e., insurers). The average total cost per patient was 29,943 Japanese yen for the combination therapy group and 33,182 Japanese yen for the candesartan monotherapy group, while the rate of achievement of the target blood pressure was significantly higher in the combination therapy group than in the up-titrated monotherapy group. In the combination therapy group, higher efficacy and lower incremental treatment cost ("Dominance") were observed when compared to the monotherapy group. The sensitivity analyses also supported the results. In conclusion, these results suggest that combination therapy with controlled release nifedipine and low-dose candesartan (8 mg) is "dominant" to up-titrated candesartan monotherapy for the management of essential hypertension. This conclusion was robust to sensitivity analysis.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of results from the Coronary Angioplasty Amlodipine Restenosis Study (CAPARES) in Norway and Canada.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the health economic benefits of using amlodipine in patients undergoing angioplasty procedures in Canada and Norway. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to find the total expected cost per patient for a 4-month time period following an initial angioplasty. The model used clinical data from the Coronary Angioplasty Amlodipine Restenosis Study (CAPARES), a prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted to investigate the effects of amlodipine on restenosis and clinical events in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Outcomes of interest to this analysis included MI, repeat PTCA, CABG, and all-cause mortality. Clinical experts from Canada and Norway were enlisted and a modified Delphi study approach was used to quantify healthcare resources consumed for each clinical outcome. RESULTS: The use of amlodipine decreased the rates of MI, PTCA, and CABG by 2.0, 4.7, and 2.7%, respectively. The total expected cost per patient using amlodipine was $6,398.30 (US$4,323) in Canada and kr 59,993.27 (US$6,846) in Norway. The total expected cost per patient not using amlodipine was $6,519.37 (US$4,405) in Canada and kr 64,292.17 (US$7,337) in Norway. The model demonstrated potential cost-savings over a 4-month follow up period resulting from the improved clinical outcomes for patients using amlodipine with PTCA--$121,071 (US$81,844) per 1000 patients in Canada and kr 4,298,899 (US$490,074) per 1000 patients in Norway. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive use of amlodipine is a cost-effective therapeutic strategy to achieve more favorable clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PTCAs in Canada and Norway.

Urinary incontinence in the elderly: pharmacologic therapies.

Treatment of acute urinary incontinence should be directed toward the underlying cause, such as infection, medication side effect, atrophic vaginitis, anxiety, depression and restricted mobility. Pharmacologic treatment depends on identification of one of the four subtypes of chronic urinary incontinence: stress, urge, overflow or mixed. Stress incontinence responds to alpha-adrenergic agents, which increase sphincter tone. Urge incontinence is the most common type of incontinence in the elderly; it can be treated with anticholinergic agents, smooth muscle relaxants, estrogen replacement therapy in women and, possibly, calcium antagonists. Overflow incontinence is caused by neurologic deficits, such as diabetes, or outflow obstruction, such as from prostatic enlargement, urethral stricture and tumors. Anticholinergic agents and alpha-adrenergic agents should be considered only after existing outflow obstruction is surgically corrected or intermittent catheterization is unsuccessful.