Cost-utility analysis of antihypertensive combination therapy in Japan by a Monte Carlo simulation model.

The objective of the present study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lifetime antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy, calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy, or ARB plus CCB (ARB+CCB) combination therapy in Japan. Based on the results of large-scale clinical trials and epidemiological data, we constructed a Markov model for patients with essential hypertension. Our Markov model comprised coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and progression of diabetic nephropathy submodels. Based on this model, analysis of the prognosis of each patient was repeatedly conducted by Monte Carlo simulation. The three treatment strategies were compared in hypothetical 55-year-old patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160 mmHg in the absence and presence of comorbid diabetes. Olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/d was the ARB and azelnidipine 16 mg/d the CCB in our model. On-treatment SBP was assumed to be 125, 140, and 140 mmHg in the ARB+CCB, ARB alone, and CCB alone groups, respectively. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted by 3%/year. The ARB+CCB group was the most cost-effective both in male and female patients with or without diabetes. In conclusion, ARB plus CCB combination therapy may be a more cost-effective lifetime antihypertensive strategy than monotherapy with either agent alone.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: controlled-release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-Combi) study.

As recommended by the guidelines such as JSH 2004, combination therapy with multiple agents is now being applied to many patients with hypertension. However, a pharmacoeconomic analysis of each therapy has not been fully undertaken in Japan, despite increasing societal interest. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of two calcium channel blockers, each coadministered with an angiotensin receptor blockade, was compared using data from the ADVANCE-Combi study. The ADVANCE-Combi study was a 16-week double-blind, randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of two combination therapies (controlled-release nifedipine [nifedipine CR] plus valsartan vs. amlodipine plus valsartan) on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. The incremental cost effectiveness of each cohort was compared from the perspective of insurers. The average total cost per patient was Japanese yen (JPY) 31,615 for the nifedipine CR treatment group and JPY 35,399 for the amlodipine treatment group (p < 0.001). The achievement rate of the target BP (SBP/DBP < 130/85 mmHg for patients aged under 60 years; SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for those aged 60 years and over) was significantly higher in the nifedipine CR treatment group (61.2%) than in the amlodipine treatment group (34.6%) (p < 0.001), with no difference in the incidence of drug-related adverse events. Accordingly, the base case economic analysis demonstrated that the nifedipine CR treatment group was dominant (more efficacious and less costly) to the amlodipine treatment group. This result was supported by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. These results indicate that nifedipine CR-based combination therapy is superior to amlodipine-based combination therapy for the management of essential hypertension in the Japanese population.

Comparison of health costs associated with treatment of hypertension with a calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the United States and Japan.

Hypertension is prevalent in over 25% of populations in developed countries, and poses an increasing economic burden on health resources. Therefore it is predicted that future medical treatment of hypertension will be increasingly affected by cost considerations. Several classes of antihypertensive drugs are used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, but the economic impact of using these agents in different countries remains to be addressed. In this study, we compared health costs associated with treatment of hypertension using the calcium channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in the US and Japan. Pharmaceutical costs and hospitalization costs were analyzed from established databases. The data for the prevalence of myocardial infarction and stroke were derived from the Framingham study and the Hisayama study. Analysis of the economic impacts using relative risk differences between the calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor together with regional hospitalization costs resulted in an apparent 11.2 billion yen health cost reduction in favor of the calcium channel blocker in the case of Japan, in contrast to an apparent 5.7 billion yen reduction in favor of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the case of the US. The trends in Japan for 2000 and 2004 were similar. These results suggest that there are regional differences in the health costs associated with different classes of hypertensive agents, which could affect national policies on the choice of antihypertensive drugs. It is predicted that future treatment of hypertension will be increasingly tailored to the epidemiologic profiles and medical costs of individual communities.

Controlled release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-combi) study.

This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of two calcium channel blocker-based combination therapies with an angiotensin receptor blocker in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. A 16-week, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized clinical trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of controlled release nifedipine (nifedipine CR) plus valsartan vs. that of amlodipine plus valsartan. The primary endpoint was the target blood pressure achievement rate. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to nifedipine CR-based or amlodipine-based treatment groups. Patients were examined every 4 weeks to determine whether the blood pressure had reached the target level. When the target level was not achieved, the drug regimen was changed; when the target blood pressure was achieved, the same study medication was continued. A total of 505 patients were enrolled in the study (nifedipine CR group: 245 cases; amlodipine group: 260 cases). After 16 weeks of treatment, blood pressure was significantly reduced in both groups, but to a larger extent in the nifedipine CR group than in the amlodipine group (p < 0.01). The target blood pressure achievement rate was also significantly higher in the nifedipine CR group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of drug-related adverse events between the groups. These results indicate that the nifedipine CR-based combination therapy was superior to the amlodipine-based therapy for decreasing blood pressure and achieving the target blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension.

Use of gadolinium contrast adrenal venography for the assessment of primary aldosteronism in a patient with iodine allergy.

Primary aldosteronism is a relatively common cause of secondary hypertension. It is often important to diagnose this disease accurately, since appropriate surgical therapy may result in cure of the disease. Assessment of the laterality of adrenal hyperfunction is possible using adrenal venous sampling of steroid hormones, but this procedure may not be feasible in patients with allergy to iodinated radiocontrast agents. In this paper, we report a patient with primary aldosteronism who was found to have bilateral adrenal tumors on CT. Because preoperative localization of the hyperfunctioning tumor was important, adrenal venous sampling and venography was performed by a highly-experienced radiologist using the MRI contrast agent gadolinium. After reviewing the data, the patient received a right adrenalectomy. This case report demonstrates that it was possible to perform adrenal venography using gadolinium in this patient, however the safety and efficacy should be re-assessed in individual cases.

Assessment of beta cell mass and oxidative peritoneal exudate cells in murine type 1 diabetes using adoptive transfer system.

Because it is controversial how the beta cell mass is reduced during the disease process in type 1 diabetes, we transferred splenocytes from Non-obese diabetic (NOD) to NOD-scid mice and evaluated the relation between the status of the pancreas in donors and the time taken to transfer diabetes to the recipients. We also evaluated the usefulness of assessment of the proportion of oxidative peritoneal exudate cells (PEC) as a novel marker of disease activity in this system. We examined the proportion of oxidative PEC, pancreatic insulin content and pancreatic histology in 16-18-week-old female NOD mice (donors), and transferred their splenocytes into 5-week-old female NOD-scid mice (recipients). After the onset of diabetes in NOD-scid recipients, we assessed the relation between insulin content (or severity of insulitis) of NOD donors and the time taken to transfer diabetes to NOD-scid recipients. The insulin content of "diabetes-prone" donors whose disease status was considered to be just before the onset of diabetes ("malignant" donors) was the same as that of diabetic mice, whereas the insulin content of "diabetes-prone" donors excluding "malignant" donors ("benign" donors) was the same as that of "non-diabetes-prone" donors. Because its proportion of oxidative PEC was inversely correlated with the severity of insulitis, we then evaluated the relation between the proportion of oxidative PEC and the time taken to transfer diabetes. "Malignant" donors had less proportion of oxidative PEC (< 10%), as compared to "benign" and "non-diabetes-prone" donors. These results suggest that a marked reduction of beta cell mass occurs at the very late prediabetic stage, and assessment of the proportion of oxidative PEC is useful to evaluate disease activity in type 1 diabetes.