Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs. Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors-2019 Update.

An abundance of new data regarding the use of the novel drug compound sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients is published every year since the initial publication of the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. This review summarises the most recent evidence (2019 and onwards) of sacubitril/valsartan in CHF patients as well as provides a critical appraisal of these data. New data are grouped in categories such as real-world data, randomised controlled trials, surrogate end-points, cost-effectiveness, use of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive treatment, effect on diuretic dosing and implementation of this novel compound in other populations. This review of recent literature identified important messages such as early initiation during index hospitalisation or immediately post-discharge, barriers against implementation of this novel treatment modality, analytical issues regarding measuring natriuretic peptides in patients under treatment and extrapolated use of sacubitril/valsartan in other than PARADIGM-HF populations. This update may serve as a very helpful evidence-based resource for practising clinicians, future research planning and health-related policy makers.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

Adoption of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Management of Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in July 2015. We aimed to assess the adoption and prescription drug costs of sacubitril/valsartan in its first 18 months after Food and Drug Administration approval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a large US insurance database, we identified privately insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who filled a first prescription for sacubitril/valsartan between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. We compared them to patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Outcomes included adoption, prescription drug costs, and 180-day adherence, defined as a proportion of days covered ≥80%. A total of 2244 patients initiated sacubitril/valsartan. Although the number of users increased over time, the proportion of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients taking sacubitril/valsartan remained low (<3%). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan were younger, more often male, with less comorbidity than those taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker. Although a majority of prescription costs were covered by the health plan (mean, $328.37; median, $362.44 per 30-day prescription), out-of-pocket costs were still high (mean, $71.16; median, $40.27). By comparison, median out-of-pocket costs were $2 to $3 for lisinopril, losartan, carvedilol, and spironolactone. Overall, 59.1% of patients were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. Refill patterns suggested that nearly half of nonadherent patients discontinued sacubitril/valsartan within 180 days of starting. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of sacubitril/valsartan after Food and Drug Administration approval has been slow and may be associated with the high cost.

The Combination of Valsartan and Sacubitril in the Treatment of Hypertension and Heart Failure - an Update.

A novel antihypertensive drug, LCZ696 (Entresto®), has recently been introduced, which combines the action of an antagonist of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), effectively decreasing the blood pressure, with an inhibition of neprilysin, which is responsible for metabolizing natriuretic peptides exerting antihypertensive and antifibrotic effects. In this MiniReview, we describe the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, efficacy and side effects of the combined angiotensin receptor antagonist and neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696. We summarize the effect of LCZ696 treatment of patients suffering from hypertension and heart failure (HF) and further highlight the role of this new drug as a treatment option in the future. In the earlier stages of the treatment of patients with heart failure, LCZ696 was superior in lowering the blood pressure compared to olmesartan, while the effect on blood pressure at long-term treatment was comparable for the two drugs. The numbers of adverse effects were comparable. LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing mortality, hospitalizations and HF symptoms. Adverse effects were reduced with a slower up-titrating regimen of 6 weeks. The current results are promising and suggest that LCZ696 will be a new candidate for first-line treatment of HF. However, it needs to be explored whether LCZ696 is safe in pregnant women, what are the effects of long-term LCZ696 treatment on survival and whether the antifibrotic effects can be of major benefit in, for example HF with preserved ejection fraction.

Cost Effectiveness of the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Sacubitril/Valsartan for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Netherlands: A Country Adaptation Analysis Under the Former and Current Dutch Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained. METHODS: We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.

Neprilysin Inhibitors: Emerging Therapy for Heart Failure.

Biologically active natriuretic peptides (NPs) are an integral part of cardiac homeostasis as they help to maintain sodium and fluid balance. When homeostasis is perturbed by neurohormonal activation in heart failure, levels of NPs rise in response. Neprilysin (NEP) is a naturally occuring enzyme that breaks down NPs. Scientists have recently discovered a novel pharmacologic agent that combines a NEP inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker. In a large clinical trial, this new drug was found to reduce hospitalization and mortality in systolic heart failure. The challenges of implementing this therapy include patient selection, cost, and risk of side effects including angioedema and Alzheimer's disease.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan Combination Therapy Compared With Enalapril for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of sacubitril-valsartan relative to enalapril for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Compared with enalapril, combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI), as is found in sacubitril-valsartan, reduces cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization rates in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: Using a Markov model, costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness were estimated for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril therapies for the treatment of HFrEF. Patients were 60 years of age at model entry and were modeled over a lifetime (40 years) from a third-party payer perspective. Clinical probabilities were derived predominantly from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). All costs and effects were discounted at a 3% rate annually and are presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: In the base case, sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, was more costly ($60,391 vs. $21,758) and more effective (6.49 vs. 5.74 QALYs) over a lifetime. The cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan was highly dependent on duration of treatment, ranging from $249,411 per QALY at 3 years to $50,959 per QALY gained over a lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan may be a cost-effective treatment option depending on the willingness-to-pay threshold. Future investigations should incorporate real-world evidence with sacubitril-valsartan to further inform decision making.

Combined Angiotensin Receptor Antagonism and Neprilysin Inhibition.

Heart failure affects ≈5.7 million people in the United States alone. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have improved mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but mortality remains high. In July 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of a new class of drugs for the treatment of heart failure: Valsartan/sacubitril (formerly known as LCZ696 and currently marketed by Novartis as Entresto) combines the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril in a 1:1 ratio in a sodium supramolecular complex. Sacubitril is converted by esterases to LBQ657, which inhibits neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for the degradation of the natriuretic peptides and many other vasoactive peptides. Thus, this combined angiotensin receptor antagonist and neprilysin inhibitor addresses 2 of the pathophysiological mechanisms of heart failure: activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and decreased sensitivity to natriuretic peptides. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, valsartan/sacubitril significantly reduced mortality and hospitalization for heart failure, as well as blood pressure, compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and an elevated circulating level of brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the role of valsartan/sacubitril in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension. We review here the mechanisms of action of valsartan/sacubitril, the pharmacological properties of the drug, and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of heart failure and hypertension.

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.

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.

[Fixed drug combinations in hypertension: a budget impact analysis for the Spanish Health System on the marketing of a fixed combination of olmesartan/amlodipine]. / Las combinaciones fijas en hipertensión: análisis de impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud Español de la comercialización de la combinación fija de olmesartan/amlodipino.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a budget impact analysis (BIA) of olmesartan/amlodipine (20/5, 40/5 and 40/10mg) marketed as a fixed combination (FC) in its approved indication for the National Health System (NHS). DESIG: We developed a decision tree model in order to estimate usual hypertension treatment algorithm in Spanish clinical practice. SETTINGS: The BIA has been developed from the perspective of the NHS for a period of 3 years (years 2010-2012). PARTICIPANTS: Spanish hypertensive population ≥ 35 years old. INTERVENTIONS: Introduction into the market of a fixed combination (FC) olmesartan/amlodipine in Spain. PRIMARY MEASURES: Expected costs to be assumed by the Spanish NHS (RRP-VAT) for hypertensive population able to be treated with the FC versus currently assumed costs by the NHS with free combination olmesartan and amlodipine. RESULTS: Estimated pharmaceutical costs in hypertensive population treated with olmesartan and amlodipine (2 pills) would be €25.2M (1(st) year), €26.4M (2011), €27.6M (2012), with a total 3-year period of €79.2M. According to patient tree model, the population able to be treated with FC would be 71,283 patients (2010), with a growth rate of 4.8% in the successive years, which supposes an annual cost of €21.2M (2010), €21.8M (2011) and €22.4M (2012), with a total 3-year period of €65.4M. The BIA shows savings of €13.8M in a total 3-year period. CONCLUSION: The BIA of FC olmesartan/amlodipine could generate net savings of €13.8M for the NHS in the period ranging from years 2010 to 2012.

Economic evaluation of irbesartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension in Greece.

OBJECTIVES: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates irbesartan in relation to commonly used alternative hypertension therapies losartan and valsartan given in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the general hypertensive population in Greece. METHODS: A Markov model with eight states of health was constructed: hypertension, myocardial infarction (MI), post-MI, angina, stroke, poststroke, heart failure, and death. The model has an annual cycle and estimates mean quality-adjusted survival and treatment cost, which reflect the hypertension treatment and managing cardiovascular events. Risk functions were used to conduct extrapolations. Data on treatment effectiveness, quality of life (QOL) and epidemiology were obtained from published clinical trials and studies. The database of the main Greek National Social Insurance Institute (IKA) was analyzed to estimate the cost of events. The analysis was done from a payer perspective. All outcomes were discounted, and prices correspond to 2008. RESULTS: The estimated patient cost per annum was stable angina euro 2,252, unstable angina euro 2,572, myocardial infarction euro 2,473, post-MI euro 1,677, stroke euro 12,233, poststroke euro 1,240, heart failure euro 2,655, coronary angiography euro 1,544, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty euro 6,511, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery euro 11,514. For the baseline group (age 57 years, systolic blood pressure 147 mmHg, cholesterol 6.00 mmol/L, body mass index 29) of men with mild to moderate hypertension, for irbesartan, the total treatment cost was euro 15,146, for losartan euro 15,696 and for valsartan euro 15,613; the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were irbesartan 12.67, losartan 12.63 and valsartan 12.64. For the baseline group of women with mild to moderate hypertension, the total treatment cost was euro 12,945 for irbesartan, euro 13,424 for losartan and euro 13,379 for valsartan; QALYs were 14.29 for irbesartan, 14.27 for losartan and 14.27 for valsartan. For men with severe hypertension, for irbesartan and losartan, the total treatment cost was euro 18,679 and euro 21,488 and QALYs 12.47 and 12.37, respectively. For women, the total treatment cost was euro 16,202 and euro 19,099 and QALYs 14.16 and 14.09, respectively. Similar results were obtained in relation to other treatment groups in various sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Based on efficacy data from clinical trials and lower attainment costs in various hypertensive patient populations, irbesartan in combination with HCTZ compares favorably with losartan and valsartan in combination with HCTZ in the Greek setting.

Cost-effectiveness of irbesartan 300 mg given early versus late in patients with hypertension and a history of type 2 diabetes and renal disease: a Canadian perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Irbesartan in Reduction of Microalbuminuria trial and the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial found that irbesartan is renoprotective in patients having hypertension with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether treatment with irbesartan is cost-effective in Canada relative to conventional care in this patient population and whether it is more cost-effective to treat patients early rather than later in the development of renal disease from the perspective of the Canadian health and social care system. METHODS: The analysis compared 3 alternative strategies for the management of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes and early renal disease: (1) conventional hypertensive treatment excluding the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonists (AIIRAs); (2) the early addition of irbesartan (an AIIRA) to conventional treatment; and (3) the late addition of irbesartan to conventional treatment. A Markov model was used to simulate the progression of renal disease (microalbuminuria to death) in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes over a 25-year time horizon. Transition probabilities were derived from the 2 randomized controlled trials. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with outcome measured in life-years gained (LYGs). RESULTS: The early addition of irbesartan during microalbuminuria was cost-saving and more effective than both delaying irbesartan treatment until advanced overt nephropathy (AON) (0.45 LYG, Can $54,100 saved) and conventional antihypertensive use (0.62 LYG, $68,400 saved). This was due to the increased drug costs associated with the use of irbesartan being offset by savings arising from delays in the development of overt nephropathy and the subsequent delay to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study results. CONCLUSIONS: The early use of irbesartan for patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes who have yet to develop overt nephropathy is both more effective and less costly than delaying irbesartan treatment until AON and conventional antihypertensive use. Analysis suggests that the earlier irbesartan is added to conventional antihypertensive treatment, the greater the delays in the onset of ESRD and the overall savings in health care resource utilization from the perspective of the Canadian health and social care system.

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.

Methods for the economic and quality of life supplement to the cilostazol for RESTenosis (CREST) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine economic and quality of life outcomes for the Cilostazol for RESTenosis (CREST) trial, which is investigating the efficacy of cilostazol vs. placebo in preventing post-stent restenosis. DESIGN: CREST is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. SETTING: 20 clinical sites; the Emory Center for Outcomes Research (ECOR) will serve as the economic and data coordinating center. PATIENTS: 705 patients (>18 years) who have undergone successful, uncomplicated placement of an intracoronary stent in a native coronary artery. INTERVENTION: Cilostazol (100 mg twice daily) or placebo for 6 months. COSTS: Primary endpoint, total direct medical costs at 6 months; secondary endpoints, initial hospital costs and follow-up costs. QOL: Health-related quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Cost-effectiveness analysis: Preliminary data show that cilostazol is clinically superior to placebo and if the mean cost for the cilostazol arm is higher than that for placebo, cost-effectiveness analysis will be determined for the cost per episode of restenosis prevented, the cost per episode of major clinical and angiographic endpoints averted, and the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained.