Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Clinical Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.

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.

Reflections of the Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Recall by the FDA and Repercussions on Healthcare.

PURPOSE: Beginning in July of 2018, the FDA issued a voluntary recall regarding the presence of a contaminant found in the manufacturing of valsartan. What would ensue has become a largely unprecedented sequence of alarming events since the FDA began reporting public recalls, withdrawals and safety alerts on their website in 2016. Since then, the United States has been significantly impacted by drug recalls affecting angiotensin receptor blockers. This report arms clinicians with additional guidance and provides a framework for responding appropriately to future similar incidents and includes an overview of the angiotensin receptor blockers, and their effects and safety profiles. METHODS: This report includes a review of data from all pertinent clinical and scientific sources including information from the FDA's inspection documents and recall website. Additional information is provided on the specific bottles including all lot numbers, expiration dates, etc. RESULTS: The recalls/withdrawals are attributable to the presence of cancer-causing contaminants identified during the manufacturing process from drug manufacturers abroad. The root causes behind the recalls and subsequent shortage appear multifactorial, and stem to a certain extent from the outsourcing of medication manufacturing overseas and lack of quality checks and appropriate oversight. CONCLUSIONS: This inherent issue is not likely to resolve soon and has eroded the public trust of/in the healthcare system and the pharmaceutical industry. Patients and healthcare providers are significantly affected and should have a full understanding of the matter in order to guide appropriate response and actions.

Systematic assessment of prescribed medications and short-term risk of myocardial infarction - a pharmacopeia-wide association study from Norway and Sweden.

Wholesale, unbiased assessment of Scandinavian electronic health-care databases offer a unique opportunity to reveal potentially important undiscovered drug side effects. We examined the short-term risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) associated with drugs prescribed in Norway or Sweden. We identified 24,584 and 97,068 AMI patients via the patient- and the cause-of-death registers and linked to prescription databases in Norway (2004-2014) and Sweden (2005-2014), respectively. A case-crossover design was used to compare the drugs dispensed 1-7 days before the date of AMI diagnosis with 15-21 days' time -window for all the drug individually while controlling the receipt of other drugs. A BOLASSO approach was used to select drugs that acutely either increase or decrease the apparent risk of AMI. We found 48 drugs to be associated with AMI in both countries. Some antithrombotics, antibiotics, opioid analgesics, adrenergics, proton-pump inhibitors, nitroglycerin, diazepam, metoclopramide, acetylcysteine were associated with higher risk for AMI; whereas angiotensin-II-antagonists, calcium-channel blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors, allopurinol, mometasone, metformin, simvastatin, levothyroxine were inversely associated. The results were generally robust in different sensitivity analyses. This study confirms previous findings for certain drugs. Based on the known effects or indications, some other associations could be anticipated. However, inverse associations of hydroxocobalamin, levothyroxine and mometasone were unexpected and needs further investigation. This pharmacopeia-wide association study demonstrates the feasibility of a systematic, unbiased approach to pharmacological triggers of AMI and other diseases with acute, identifiable onsets.

The value of maintaining normokalaemia and enabling RAASi therapy in chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at an increased risk of developing hyperkalaemia due to their declining kidney function. In addition, these patients are often required to reduce or discontinue guideline-recommended renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) therapy due to increased risk of hyperkalaemia. This original research developed a model to quantify the health and economic benefits of maintaining normokalaemia and enabling optimal RAASi therapy in patients with CKD. METHODS: A patient-level simulation model was designed to fully characterise the natural history of CKD over a lifetime horizon, and predict the associations between serum potassium levels, RAASi use and long-term outcomes based on published literature. The clinical and economic benefits of maintaining sustained potassium levels and therefore avoiding RAASi discontinuation in CKD patients were demonstrated using illustrative, sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Internal and external validation exercises confirmed the predictive capability of the model. Sustained potassium management and ongoing RAASi therapy were associated with longer life expectancy (+ 2.36 years), delayed onset of end stage renal disease (+ 5.4 years), quality-adjusted life-year gains (+ 1.02 QALYs), cost savings (£3135) and associated net monetary benefit (£23,446 at £20,000 per QALY gained) compared to an absence of RAASi to prevent hyperkalaemia. CONCLUSION: This model represents a novel approach to predicting the long-term benefits of maintaining normokalaemia and enabling optimal RAASi therapy in patients with CKD, irrespective of the strategy used to achieve this target, which may support decision making in healthcare.

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.

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Hypertension Management with Coveram (Perindopril/Amlodipine Fixed Combination) in Patients with Previous Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) Treatment: Arabian Gulf STRONG Study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of hypertension management with Coveram (perindopril/amlodipine combination) in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP). All patients were on previous angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) treatment. METHODS: This was a 3 country, multi-centre (7 cities), open-label, observational study in the Arabian Gulf. Patients (≥18 years) were recruited between October 2012 and November 2013 and followed-up for 3 months after enrolment. Outcomes included changes in BP from baseline and BP goal attainment rates as per Joint National Committee- 8 (<140/90 mmHg for diabetics and those <60 years of age and <150/90 mmHg for those ≥60 years of age without diabetes). Medication tolerance was also assessed from both patient and physician perspectives. RESULTS: Hypertensive patients (n=760; mean age: 51±10 years; 67% were males) were included. A total of 178 patients (23%) were lost to follow-up. The perindopril/amlodipine combination was associated with an overall reduction in systolic BP (SBP) (31 mmHg; p<0.001) and diastolic BP (DBP) (18 mmHg; p<0.001) from baseline. An overall BP control rate was achieved in 87% (n=507) of the participants. There were significant incremental BP reductions with dose up-titration, especially SBP (p<0.001). Those with high SBP (>180 mmHg) at baseline were associated with a mean reduction of 59 mmHg (p<0.001). The perindopril/amlodipine combination had excellent tolerance levels over the study period from both patient and physician perspectives (at 99% and 98%, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The perindopril/amlodipine combination is an effective and well tolerated anti-hypertensive option in patients on previous ARB treatment.

Acute kidney injury secondary to a combination of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, diuretics and NSAIDS: "The Triple Whammy".

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (ACEI/ARB-II), diuretics and NSAIDs, a combination known as "Triple Whammy", can result in decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Objectives: To describe the incidence of AKI for each drug type and their combinations. To define the profile of patients admitted for drug-related AKI secondary to Triple Whammy drugs (AKITW), with an assessment of costs and mortality. METHODS: A retrospective observational 15-month study developed in three stages: - First: a cross-sectional stage to identify and describe hospitalizations due to AKITW. - Second: a follow-up stage of an outpatient cohort consuming these drugs (15,307 subjects). - Third: a cohort stage to assess costs and mortality, which compared 62 hospitalized patients with AKITW and 62 without AKI, paired by medical specialty, sex, age and comorbidity according to their Clinical Risk Groups. RESULTS: There were 85 hospitalization episodes due to AKITW, and 78% of patients were over the age of 70. The incidence of AKITW in the population was 3.40 cases/1000 users/year (95% CI: 2.59-4.45). By categories, these were: NSAIDs + diuretics 8.99 (95% CI: 3.16-25.3); Triple Whammy 8.82 (95% CI: 4.4-17.3); ACEI/ARB-II + diuretics 6.87 (95% CI: 4.81-9.82); and monotherapy with diuretics 3.31 (95% CI: 1.39-7.85). Mean hospital stay was 7.6 days (SD 6.4), and mean avoidable costs were estimated at €214,604/100,000 inhabitants/year. Mortality during hospitalization and at 12 months was 11.3% and 38.7% respectively, and there were no significant differences when compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ACEI, ARB-II, diuretics and/or NSAIDs shows a high incidence of hospitalization episodes due to AKI; diuretics as monotherapy or dual and triple combination therapy cause the highest incidence. AKITW involves high health care costs and avoidable mortality.

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.

Angiotensin-II receptor 1 antagonist fetopathy--risk assessment, critical time period and vena cava thrombosis as a possible new feature.

AIMS: Angiotensin-II receptor 1 antagonists (AT1-antagonists) may cause severe and even lethal fetopathy in late pregnancy. However, exposure still occurs in spite of warnings in package leaflets. This study aimed to assess the risk of fetopathy, the sensitive time window, and possible new symptoms in prospective as well as retrospective cases with AT1-antagonist treatment during the second or third trimester of pregnancy. METHODS: Patients were enrolled by the Berlin Institute for Clinical Teratology and Drug Risk Assessment in Pregnancy between 1999 and 2011 through risk consultation. Symptoms defined as indicative of AT1-antagonist fetopathy were: oligo-/anhydramnios, renal insufficiency, lung hypoplasia, joint contractures, skull hypoplasia and fetal/neonatal death. RESULTS: In 5/29 (17%) prospectively enrolled cases with AT1-antagonist exposure beyond the first trimester oligo-/anhydramnios was diagnosed. Two infants showed additional symptoms of fetopathy. The risk is more than 30% if treatment continues beyond the 20th week of pregnancy. Oligo-/anhydramnios was reversible after AT1-antagonist withdrawal. Among 16 retrospective case reports, three infants presented with a thrombosis of the inferior vena cava in the vicinity of the renal veins. Four out of 13 live births did not survive. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggests that the risk increases with duration of AT1-antagonist treatment into late pregnancy and oligo-/anhydramnios may be reversible after AT1-antagonist discontinuation. Thrombosis of inferior vena cava may be a new feature of AT1-antagonist fetopathy. AT1-antagonist medication during pregnancy constitutes a considerable risk and must be discontinued immediately. In case of indicative diagnostic findings in either the fetus or newborn, previous maternal AT1-antagonist exposure should be considered.

I-ADD study: assessment of efficacy and safety profile of irbesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination therapy compared with irbesartan monotherapy in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with irbesartan 150 mg monotherapy: a multicenter, phase III, prospective, randomized, open-label with blinded-end point evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of 2 agents with synergistic action when >1 agent is needed to achieve blood pressure goals. Newer antihypertensive treatment combinations include fixed-dose combinations of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker. OBJECTIVE: The I-ADD study aimed to demonstrate whether the antihypertensive efficacy of fixed-dose combination irbesartan 300 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (I300/A5) was superior to that of irbesartan (I300) monotherapy in lowering home systolic blood pressure after 10 weeks' treatment. METHODS: The I-ADD study was a 10-week, multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label with blinded-end point study. The main inclusion criterion was essential uncontrolled hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥145 mm Hg at office after at least 4 weeks of irbesartan 150 mg [I150] monotherapy administered once daily). Patients continued to receive I150 for 7 to 10 days and were randomized to either monotherapy with I150 for 5 weeks then I300 for the next 5 weeks, or to a fixed-dose combination therapy (I150/A5, then I300/A5). Safety profile was assessed by recording adverse events reported by patients or observed by the investigator. RESULTS: Following enrollment, 325 patients were randomized to treatment, and 320 (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [11.4] years; 41% male) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 155 patients treated with I150/A5 then I300/A5, and 165 patients treated with I150 then I300. At randomization, mean home systolic blood pressure was similar in both groups: 152.7 (11.8) mm Hg in the I150/A5 group and 150.4 (10.1) mm Hg in the I150 group. At week 10, the adjusted mean difference in home systolic blood pressure between groups was -8.8 (1.1) mm Hg (P < 0.001). The percentage of controlled patients (mean home blood pressure <135 and 85 mm Hg) was nearly 2-fold higher in the I300/A5 group versus the I300 group (P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced by 10.5% of I300/A5-treated patients and 6.6% of I300-treated patients during the second 5-week period. Three serious adverse events were reported; 2 with monotherapy (1 with I150 and 1 with I300) and 1 with fixed-dose combination I300/A5. All patients affected by serious adverse events made a full recovery. CONCLUSIONS: These 10-week data from this patient population suggest a greater antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed-dose combination I300/A5 over I300 alone in lowering systolic blood pressure. Both treatments were well tolerated throughout the study. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00957554.

I-COMBINE study: assessment of efficacy and safety profile of irbesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination therapy compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy: a multicenter, phase III, prospective, randomized, open-label with blinded-end point evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of 2 agents with synergistic action when >1 agent is needed to achieve blood pressure goals. Newer antihypertensive treatment combinations include fixed-dose combinations of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker. OBJECTIVE: The I-COMBINE study aimed to determine whether the antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed-dose combination irbesartan 150 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (I150/A5) was superior to that of amlodipine 5 mg (A5) monotherapy in lowering home systolic blood pressure (HSBP) after 5 weeks' treatment. METHODS: The I-COMBINE study was a 10-week, multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label with blinded-endpoint study. The main inclusion criterion was essential uncontrolled hypertension (SBP ≥145 mm Hg at office, after at least 4 weeks of A5 monotherapy administered once daily). Patients continued to receive A5 for 7 to 10 days and were randomized to either monotherapy with A5 for 5 weeks then amlodipine 10 mg (A10) for the next 5 weeks or to a fixed-dose combination therapy (I150/A5 then I150/A10). Safety profile was assessed by recording adverse events reported by patients or observed by the investigator. RESULTS: Following enrollment, 290 patients were randomized to treatment, and 287 (mean [SD] age, 57.3 [11.2] years; 48% male) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 144 patients treated with I150/A5 then I150/A10, and 143 patients treated with A5 then A10. At randomization, mean HSBP was similar in both groups: 148.5 (10.3) mm Hg in the I150/A5 group and 149.2 (9.7) mm Hg in the A5 group. At week 5, the adjusted mean difference in HSBP between groups was -6.2 (1.0) mm Hg (P < 0.001). The proportion of controlled patients (mean home blood pressure <135 and 85 mm Hg) was significantly higher in the I150/A5 group than in the A5 group (P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced by 13.8% of I150/A5-treated patients and 11.9% of A5-treated patients during the first 5-week period, and by 15.8% of I150/A10-treated patients and 17.0% of A10-treated patients during the second 5-week period. Two serious adverse events were reported with the fixed-dose combination; both patients recovered. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this adult population with essential hypertension suggest greater efficacy with the fixed-dose combination I150/A5 over A5 monotherapy in lowering SBP after 5 weeks. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated throughout the study. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00956644.

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.

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.

Valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its use since its introduction.

INTRODUCTION: This review focuses on the role of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) drug valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of hypertension. Effective blood pressure control often is not achieved with monotherapy and, instead, requires combinations of drugs with different mechanisms of action to produce additive or synergistic effects. AREAS COVERED: FDC valsartan/HCTZ enhances not only efficacy for blood pressure control but also provides beneficial effects on target organs beyond that expected from arterial pressure reduction alone. Data describe key clinical trial experiences with the FDC, with particular attention to efficacy and tolerability. Literature searches of these various topics were conducted in January 2011. There is evidence of potential benefits with this combination associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular dysfunction and renal disease. The FDC is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and is superior to monotherapy than either drug alone. EXPERT OPINION: In addition to the benefits of each drug, valsartan/HCTZ's metabolic interactions reduce some of the negative effects of both compounds. With its increased simplicity, minimal side-effect profile and efficacy without a significant cost penalty, valsartan/HCTZ represents an excellent choice for antihypertensive therapy.

Modifying prescribing behaviour of angiotensin receptor blockers by selectively rescinding managerial prior authorization requirements for losartan.

AIMS: To evaluate whether rescinding the prior authorization (PA) requirement (managerial pre-approval) for losartan in an health maintenance organization (HMO) could reduce prescribing of the more expensive angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). METHODS: HMO physicians were notified that losartan would no longer require PA, and appropriate changes were made to the electronic prescribing computer program. The monthly distribution by drug of the number of prescriptions for ARBs dispensed for new patients was calculated before and after the policy change from data captured from electronic records. The proportion of patients (percentage and 95% confidence interval) treated with losartan who met the criteria for treatment with ARBs (hypertension or cardiac insufficiency in patients who have developed adverse effects in response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or macroproteinuria) during the first month after the PA requirement was rescinded was calculated. RESULTS: The total number of PA requests for ARBs declined by 48.6% from 961 in December 2008, the month before the policy change, to 494 the following January, rising again to 651 during January 2010. Prescription incidence changed from 121 to 255 patients treated per month (114% increase) for losartan, from 15 to 16 (6.7% increase) for candesartan, and from 89 to 71 (20.2% decrease) for valsartan. The duration of effect for decrease in ARB requests for the more expensive drugs was approximately 1 year. Only 23.3% (95% confidence interval 18.1-28.4) of patients receiving losartan met the criteria for receiving ARBs. CONCLUSIONS: Rescinding the PA requirement for this drug alone was an effective limited-duration strategy for reduction of prescription of relatively expensive drugs.