Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.

Conflicting Perspectives on the Value of Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure Revealed During Development of a Decision Aid Focusing on Patient Costs for Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about rising costs in health care, cost is rarely an issue discussed by patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions in a clinical setting. This study aimed to understand stakeholder perspectives on a patient decision aid (PtDA) meant to help patients with heart failure choose between a generic and relatively low-cost heart failure medication (ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker) and a newer, but more expensive, heart failure medication (angiotensin II receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor). METHODS AND RESULTS: Feedback on the PtDA was solicited from 26 stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and the manufacturer. Feedback was recorded and discussed among development team members until consensus regarding both the interpretation of the data and the appropriate changes to the PtDA was reached. Stakeholders found the PtDA sufficient in clarifying the different treatment options for heart failure. However, patients, physicians, and the manufacturer had different opinions on the importance of highlighting cost in a PtDA. Patients indicated issues of cost were crucial to the decision while physicians and manufacturers expressed that the cost issue was secondary and should be de-emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified perspectives on the role of cost in medical decision-making expressed by our participants underscore the importance and challenge of having clear, frank discussions during clinic visits about treatment cost and perceived value.

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.

The repercussion of stopping reimbursement of olmésartan on antihypertensive drugs prescription and blood pressure control of treated hypertensive patients in France.

OBJECTIVE: Since January 2017, olmesartan-based treatments are no longer reimbursed by French health insurance. Health authorities have recommended switch to one of the "many effective, better tolerated and reimbursed alternatives". The objective of this study was to evaluate the consequences on the prescription of antihypertensive drugs in France and to evaluate the blood pressure control of treated hypertensive patients after the switch from olmesartan to another Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). METHODS: To evaluate antihypertensive prescriptions, the French League Against Hypertension Survey (FLAHS) was conducted in 2007, 2012 and 2017 by self-questionnaire sent by mail to a representative panel of the population living in metropolitan France aged 35 years and over. Antihypertensive treatments were grouped by pharmacological class. To evaluate blood pressure control in hypertensive patients treated with olmesartan alone or in combination, 3 home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) were performed. The first and the second were performed without modification of the dose of olmesartan. The third was performed 1 month after the switch to another ARB. RESULTS: Antihypertensive prescriptions changed between 2007 and 2017. Beta-blockers decreased between 2007 and 2012 and then increased slightly. Between 2012 and 2017, ARB and diuretics decreased and ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) and calcium antagonist (CA) drugs increased. Blood pressure control was assessed in 82 hypertensive patients aged 63±11 years treated with olmesartan. The difference in SBP/DBP between the first 2 self-measurements was -0.96/-0.83mmHg. After therapy switch, the 3rd self-measurement showed an increase in SBP/DBP of 3.4/1.2mmHg. In the subgroup of olmesartan-treated controlled hypertensive patients, the switch to another ARB lead to uncontrolled hypertension for 20% of patients with a 12.1mmHg increase in SBP. CONCLUSION: With the halt of reimbursement of olmesartan, there was a decrease in the prescription of ARB in France. When olmersartan was replaced by another ARB, a worse blood pressure control was observed in treated hypertensive patients. The cessation of the reimbursement of olmesartan has had consequences on the treatment of hypertension in France.

Impact of formulary restrictions on medication use and costs.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of formulary restrictions on utilization and costs of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), statins, and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) antagonists among low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients in Medicare Part D plans. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed a 5% sample of 2012 Medicare data from the Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse together with a customized dataset capturing beneficiaries' histories of plan assignment. METHODS: We constructed 3 nonexclusive study cohorts comprising of users of OHAs, statins, and RAS antagonists. Eligible study subjects were LIS recipients randomized to benchmark plans. Formulary restrictions of interest were noncoverage, prior authorization, and step therapy. Study outcomes included generic dispensing rate (GDR), mean cost per prescription fill, and medication adherence based on proportion of days covered (PDC). Random intercept regression models were performed to estimate the effects of formulary restrictions on the study outcomes by drug class. RESULTS: After covariate adjustment, beneficiaries who were subject to formulary restrictions on brand name pioglitazone and single-source brand name dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and sitagliptin-metformin) had a GDR 3 percentage points higher and a cost per prescription fill $10.8 less, but similar PDC compared with those who faced no restrictions. Restricting access to brand name atorvastatin and single-source brand name statins (rosuvastatin and ezetimibe-simvastatin) was associated with a GDR 14.9 percentage points higher and a cost per prescription fill $29.6 less, but with no impact on PDC. Restricting use of single-source brand name RAS antagonists (olmesartan, valsartan, and valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide) was associated with a GDR 15.0 percentage points higher, a cost per prescription fill $27.2 less, and a PDC 1.3 percentage points lower. CONCLUSIONS: Placing formulary restrictions on brand name drugs shifts utilization toward generic drugs, lowers the overall cost per prescription fill, and has minimal impact on overall adherence for OHAs, statins, and RAS antagonists among LIS recipients.

Farmácia Popular Program: pharmaceutical market analysis of antihypertensive acting on the renin-angiotensin system medicines.

This paper aims to analyse changes in the retail pharmaceutical market following policy changes in the Farmácia Popular Program (FP), a medicines subsidy program in Brazil. The retrospective longitudinal analyses focus on therapeutic class of agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system. Data obtained from QuintilesIMS (formerly IMS Health) included private retail pharmacy sales volume (pharmaceutical units) and sales values from 2002 to 2013. Analyses evaluated changes in market share following key FP policy changes. The therapeutic class was selected due to its relevance to hypertension treatment. Market share was analysed by therapeutic sub-classes and by individual company. Losartan as a single product accounted for the highest market share among angiotensin II antagonists. National companies had higher sales volume during the study period, while multinational companies had higher sales value. Changes in pharmaceutical market share coincided with the inclusion of specific products in the list of medicines covered by FP and with increases in or exemption from patient copayment.

Farmácia Popular Program: pharmaceutical market analysis of antihypertensive acting on the renin-angiotensin system medicines / Programa Farmácia Popular: análise do mercado farmacêutico de anti-hipertensivos do sistema renina-angiotensina

Abstract This paper aims to analyse changes in the retail pharmaceutical market following policy changes in the Farmácia Popular Program (FP), a medicines subsidy program in Brazil. The retrospective longitudinal analyses focus on therapeutic class of agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system. Data obtained from QuintilesIMS (formerly IMS Health) included private retail pharmacy sales volume (pharmaceutical units) and sales values from 2002 to 2013. Analyses evaluated changes in market share following key FP policy changes. The therapeutic class was selected due to its relevance to hypertension treatment. Market share was analysed by therapeutic sub-classes and by individual company. Losartan as a single product accounted for the highest market share among angiotensin II antagonists. National companies had higher sales volume during the study period, while multinational companies had higher sales value. Changes in pharmaceutical market share coincided with the inclusion of specific products in the list of medicines covered by FP and with increases in or exemption from patient copayment.

Resumo Este artigo visa analisar as mudanças no mercado de varejo farmacêutico, seguindo as alterações de diretiva no Programa Farmácia Popular (FP), que realiza subvenção de medicamentos no Brasil, em parceria pública privada. Foi realizada análise longitudinal retrospectiva dos medicamentos da classe terapêutica dos agentes que atuam sobre o sistema renina-angiotensina. Os dados obtidos do QuintilesIMS incluíram o varejo farmacêutico em termos do volume e valores de vendas de 2002 a 2013. Análises realizadas consideraram intervenções e reformas ocorridas no FP e seu impacto no mercado farmacêutico da classe terapêutica selecionada, devido a sua relevância para o tratamento da hipertensão. Também se examinou o comportamento do mercado tomando por base as empresas farmacêuticas produtoras. Losartan monodroga representou a maior fatia de mercado entre os antagonistas de angiotensina II. Empresas nacionais obtiveram maior volume de vendas durante o período de estudo, enquanto as empresas multinacionais exibiram maior valor de vendas. Mudanças no mercado farmacêutico coincidiram com a inclusão de produtos específicos na lista de medicamentos abrangidos pelo FP e com aumentos ou isenção de copagamento pelos pacientes.

Improving Adherence to Treatment and Reducing Economic Costs of Hypertension: The Role of Olmesartan-Based Treatment.

Poor adherence to antihypertensive treatment is the single most important factor of unsatisfactory blood pressure (BP) control. This review focuses on therapy-related factors affecting adherence and suggests how to improve it with a wise choice of treatment schedule. Complex drug treatment schemes, poor tolerability and drug substitutions are frequent causes of poor adherence which, in turn, causes insufficient BP control, greater incidence of cardiovascular events and, finally, higher global health costs. The effects of prescribing generic drugs and of drug substitutions on adherence is also discussed. In terms of adherence, generic drugs do not seem to be better than branded drugs, unless patients have to bear very high "out of pocket" expenses to buy original drugs, suggesting no advantages in switching drug with the mere goal of reducing the cost of therapy. An important role in improving adherence (and thus cardiovascular events and health expenditure) is also played by the availability of fixed-dose combinations; among antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are those associated with higher levels of adherence and persistence. Among ARBs, olmesartan stands out for a wide choice of effective fixed-dose combinations.

A literature review to evaluate the clinical and economic value of olmesartan for the treatment of hypertensive patients.

The objective of the present study was to systematically review the clinical and economic outcomes of olmesartan as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents in the treatment of hypertension. A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane library until December 2015, with no limit on publication date. Eligible studies were selected using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, limiting articles to those published in the English language. Background information of the study, participants' characteristics and study outcomes were collected. Meta-analysis of data was not performed. Fifty-five studies were included, of which fifty investigated the clinical efficacy of olmesartan and five the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan. In general results from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of olmesartan as monotherapy and as combination therapy demonstrated that olmesartan provided better antihypertensive blood pressure-lowering efficacy and was generally well tolerated compared with other antihypertensive agents. Results from economic evaluations indicated that olmesartan may be more cost-effective than other ARBs such as losartan, valsartan, irbesartan and candesartan, having the potential of decreasing the overall medical costs of care for patients with hypertension. Evidence from the present systematic review confirms the antihypertensive efficacy and good safety profile of olmesartan both as monotherapy and as combination therapy. Olmesartan was also found to be cost-effective compared with other ARBs, though this area has yet relatively poor evidence and needs to further be explored.

Role of the Pharmacoeconomic Aspects in the Clinical Management of Hypertension.

Hypertension constitutes a significant disease burden to the society, both in terms of the health-related repercussions as well as financial costs incurred due to morbidity and the cumulative cost of drug therapy. In the real world, it would be useful to have the opportunity to consider the appropriate use of antihypertensive drugs to inform and guide clinical practice. To evaluate the adherence of drugs prescriptions in clinical practice according to predefined standards of care, a series of indicators measurable in relation to specific conditions have been developed. This work presents four indicators: the first related to the use of drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system in patients at high cardiovascular risk; the second related to the use of angiotensin II antagonists with expired patent; the third related the occasional prescription of antihypertensive drugs; and the fourth on the adherence to treatment with antihypertensive drugs. The four indicators were measured in the OsMed database.

Improving Adherence to Cardiovascular Therapies: An Economic Evaluation of a Randomized Pragmatic Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Preplanned economic analysis of a pragmatic trial using electronic-medical-record-linked interactive voice recognition (IVR) reminders for enhancing adherence to cardiovascular medications (i.e., statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs], and angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]). METHODS: Three groups, usual care (UC), IVR, and IVR plus educational materials (IVR+), with 21,752 suboptimally adherent patients underwent follow-up for 9.6 months on average. Costs to implement and deliver the intervention (from a payer perspective) were tracked during the trial. Medical care costs and outcomes were ascertained using electronic medical records. RESULTS: Per-patient intervention costs ranged from $9 to $17 for IVR and from $36 to $47 for IVR+. For ACEI/ARB, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each percent adherence increase was about 3 times higher with IVR+ than with IVR ($6 and $16 for IVR and IVR+, respectively). For statins, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each percent adherence increase was about 7 times higher with IVR+ than with IVR ($6 and $43 for IVR and IVR+, respectively). Considering potential cost offsets from reduced cardiovascular events, the probability of breakeven was the highest for UC, but the IVR-based interventions had a higher probability of breakeven for subgroups with a baseline low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level of more than 100 mg/dl and those with two or more calls. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the use of an automated voice messaging system to promote adherence to ACEIs/ARBs and statins may be cost-effective, depending on a decision maker's willingness to pay for unit increase in adherence. When considering changes in LDL level and downstream medical care offsets, UC is the optimal strategy for the general population. However, IVR-based interventions may be the optimal choice for those with elevated LDL values at baseline.

The cost-effectiveness of irbesartan for hypertension.

High blood pressure is a very common problem in the adult and elderly population, both in developed and developing countries. A relatively large number of drug classes are available to treat this condition and prevent its complications, which are not only more frequent in the aforementioned patients but also those affected by metabolic syndrome and/or Type 2 diabetes. Irbesartan is an angiotensin-receptor blocker class drug with good antihypertensive efficacy and specific pharmacological characteristics, whose efficacy has been more deeply evaluated in metabolically complex hypertensive patients. In this review, the authors will analyze its effectiveness in preventing or delaying organ damage in hypertensive patients, with a closer look at the economic implications of treating hypertension with irbesartan in the context of available antihypertensive drugs.

Measures to improve angiotensin receptor blocker prescribing efficiency in the UK: findings and implications.

BACKGROUND: Generic losartan provides an opportunity to enhance angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) prescribing efficiency, with all ARBs essentially being similar. Initially, there was limited activity in NHS Bury (UK). This changed in March 2011 with therapeutic switching and other measures encouraging the prescribing of losartan following generics to enhance its utilization versus patented ARBs. AIM: This study aims to assess the impact of multiple measures on losartan utilization, its price and total ARB expenditure. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis was performed. Utilization was measured as prescription items dispensed, typically 28 days. RESULTS: No immediate change in losartan utilization was observed following generics. This changed after the multiple initiatives with losartan accounting for 65% of all single ARB items dispensed by the study end. ARB expenditure was 59% below prestudy levels by the study end, which was helped by a 92% reduction in expenditure per item for losartan. Annual net savings from the program were estimated at just under GB£290,000, which is over eight-times the cost of implementation. CONCLUSION: Multiple measures can enhance prescribing efficiency. Health authorities cannot rely on a 'spillover' effect from other classes in order to affect changes in physician prescribing habits.

Comprehensive overview: efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of irbesartan.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension represents a major health problem, affecting more than one billion adults worldwide. Irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, is considered to be a highly effective treatment in the management of hypertension. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, and cost-effectiveness of treatment with irbesartan in hypertension. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted using the electronic PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and the Health Economic Evaluations Database of search terms relating to irbesartan efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness, and the results were utilized. RESULTS: Findings from the present analysis show that irbesartan either as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents can achieve significant reductions in blood pressure, both systolic and diastolic, compared with alternative treatment options. Irbesartan was also found to have a renoprotective effect independent of its blood pressure-lowering in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Furthermore, irbesartan demonstrated an excellent safety and tolerability profile, with either lower or equal adverse events compared with placebo and other alternative treatments. In terms of economic analyses, compared with other antihypertensive therapy alternatives, irbesartan was found to be a preferred option, that is less costly and more effective. CONCLUSION: The evidence indicates that treating patients with hypertension alone or with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy using irbesartan can control hypertension, prolong life, and reduce costs in relation to existing alternatives.

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.

Treatment adherence, clinical outcomes, and economics of triple-drug therapy in hypertensive patients.

Poor antihypertensive treatment adherence adversely affects blood pressure control. We analyzed US health plan data to assess the impact of fixed- versus loose-dose triple-combination therapy on adherence, clinical, and economic outcomes. Patients initiating triple therapy with an angiotensin receptor blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or beta blocker plus amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide comprised three cohorts. Within-cohort comparisons were made between fixed-dose combinations of two antihypertensives plus a second pill (two pills) or three separate pills. Outcomes included adherence, cardiovascular events, health care resource use, and costs for patients with ≥ 12 months follow-up. A total of 16,290 patients were matched. Patients receiving two pills were more likely to be adherent (P < .001) and less likely to discontinue treatment (P < .001) across all cohorts. Therapy with two versus three pills resulted in significantly lower adjusted risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = .005) in the beta blocker cohort only. Total adjusted health care costs were significantly lower for two- versus three-pill therapy in the beta blocker cohort only (cost ratio = 0.74 overall, P < .01; 0.71 hypertension-attributable, P < .01). In patients with hypertension requiring triple therapy, fixed-dose combinations that lower pill burden may improve adherence (seen across all cohorts) and clinical outcomes (seen in the beta blocker cohort) without increasing health care costs.

Influence of lifting prescribing restrictions for losartan on subsequent sartan utilization patterns in Austria: implications for other countries.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing restrictions for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) limited their utilization in Austria. Recently, generic losartan became available with its prescribing restrictions lifted while still in place for patented ARBs. OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this study is to assess the impact of the lifting of the prescribing restriction on utilization of losartan in ambulatory care versus other single ARBs, expenditure per defined daily dose (DDD) of losartan as well as total ARB expenditure and utilization of ARB combinations. Finally, to suggest potential measures that could be introduced to further enhance ARB-prescribing efficiency. METHODOLOGY: A quasi-experimental study of the utilization of different ARBs alone or in fixed dose combinations using a segmented time series. Utilization measured in DDDs, defined as 'the average maintenance dose of a drug when used in its major indication in adults'. Costs measured as total expenditure for different ARBs as well as their expenditure/DDD. RESULTS: Losartan utilization increased significantly following the withdrawal of prescribing restrictions (p > 0.001). Utilization of single-sourced ARBs also increased , but the growth rate was appreciably reduced once restrictions were lifted for losartan (p > 0.01). As a result, total expenditure of single ARBs increased but at an appreciably lower rate than utilization, helped by total expenditure/DDD for losartan declining by 78% over the study period. There was continuing appreciable utilization of fixed-dose combinations. CONCLUSION: Lifting of prescribing restrictions for losartan significantly enhanced its utilization, increasing ARB-prescribing efficiency, providing direction to other European authorities. Additional reforms are being considered to further switch utilization away from single-sourced ARBs to additionally improve prescribing efficiency as more multiple sourced ARBs become available.

The role of irbesartan in the treatment of patients with hypertension: a comprehensive and practical review.

Irbesartan is an orally active angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) whose pharmacological profile differs significantly from those of many other compounds of the same class. In particular, according to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, irbesartan has a high bioavailability, a long duration of action and a small potential for pharmacological interactions due to the nature of the enzymatic pathway involved in its metabolic process. Morbidity data with irbesartan have been mainly accumulated in patients with renal impairment where the drug has demonstrated the most remarkable evidence of efficacy among the ARBs class, regardless of the stage of the renal disease (from early to late) and the length of the observational period. The efficacy of irbesartan has also been demonstrated in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and congestive heart failure. The drug is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and renal impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and hypertension, and its tolerability and safety profile have been extensively investigated and reported to be similar to placebo. From the pharmacoeconomic point of view, treating patients with T2D, hypertension and overt nephropathy using irbesartan was both a cost- and life-saving procedure compared with the use of amlodipine and standard antihypertensive treatment in an Italian setting. The role of irbesartan in the management of hypertension with or without T2D and renal impairment is clearly recognized by national and international guidelines and largely acknowledged by the medical community according to the efficacy of the drug in the prevention of cardiovascular risk in addition to and beyond kidney prevention.

Successful implementation of a P&T-approved therapeutic interchange program of angiotensin II receptor blockers in a medical center in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic interchange is not a common practice in the medical society in Asia. We used clinic blood pressure readings, patients' tolerance, and cost saving as measures to evaluate the impact of a therapeutic interchange program implemented at a medical center in Taiwan. METHODS: Taipei Medical University-Wan Fang Hospital initiated a therapeutic interchange program involving angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Data were retrospectively collected for 444 outpatients who were converted from other ARBs to candesartan. Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, adverse effects associated with therapy, and drug costs was conducted before and after the program implementation. RESULTS: Patients whose treatment was converted to candesartan experienced no statistically significant differences in blood pressure, and the average number of antihypertensive agents used per patient remained unchanged. A direct cost savings of US$62,237 was estimated for the 444 patients studied. Only 3.15% of the patients developed adverse drug reactions potentially related to candesartan, and none required hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this retrospective chart review, the present ARB therapeutic interchange program was successfully developed and implemented. This is the first study to establish the positive impact of a well-run ARB therapeutic interchange program in Taiwan.

Role of statin therapy and angiotensin blockade in patients with asymptomatic moderate carotid artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 10-year outcome of patients presenting with asymptomatic moderate carotid artery stenosis, and to determine which factors correlate with progression of disease to stroke or revascularization. METHODS: A retrospective review of all new patients presenting with asymptomatic moderate carotid artery stenosis from July 1998 to December 2001 was undertaken. Patients were consecutively identified and included by using duplex ultrasonography to identify moderate carotid disease. Variables were recorded for all patient encounters through June 2010. The primary end point was occurrence of ipsilateral cerebrovascular stroke or revascularization event (SORE). Statin therapy and angiotensin blockade (STAB) were categorized as follows: STAB(0)-medical treatment with neither statin therapy nor angiotensin blockade, STAB(1)-treatment with only one of the two, STAB(2)-treatment with both. An amortized cost model analyzed the cost of SORE-free survival. RESULTS: Over a 42-month period, 468 carotids in 366 patients with an average age of 69.0 ± 8.7 years were evaluated. Over a mean follow-up of 6.6 ± 2.7 years, SORE occurred in 150 (32.1%) carotid arteries. Hyperlipidemia was predictive of SORE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.543, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.053-2.262, P = 0.03). Medical therapies protective against SORE were beta-blockade (HR: 0.612, 95% CI: 0.435-0.861, P < 0.05), STAB(1) (HR: 0.487, 95% CI: 0.336-0.706, P < 0.01), and STAB(2) (HR: 0.149, 95% CI: 0.089-0.248, P < 0.01). At 10 years, SORE-free survival in STAB(2) was 82.7% ± 4.6%, STAB(1) was 56.3% ± 5.0%, and STAB(0) was 29.3% ± 5.4% (P < 0.01). The cost per SORE-free year in STAB(2) was $1,695.40 ± $275.60, STAB(1) was $3,916.80 ± $605.44, and STAB(0) was $4,126.40 ± $427.23 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the clinical and financial advantage of using both statin therapy and angiotensin pathway blockage in patients with asymptomatic moderate carotid artery stenosis.