Combinação fixa de losartana associada a hidroclorotiazida para adultos com hipertensão arterial sistêmica com controle inadequado da pressão arterial / Fixed combination of losartan associated with hydrochlorothiazide for adults with controlled systemic arterial hypertension inadequate blood pressure

INTRODUÇÃO: A hipertensão arterial sistêmica (HAS), uma doença crônica, é um grave problema de saúde pública, caracterizada por níveis elevados e persistentes da pressão sanguínea, medidos em geral como uma razão da pressão arterial sistólica e diastólica (respectivamente maior ou igual a 140 mmHg; e/ou maior ou igual a 90 mmHg). Esta é uma doença altamente prevalente em todo o mundo. No Brasil, os números podem variar de acordo com a metodologia utilizada. Reportou-se na Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde de 2013, cujos dados são obtidos por autorrelato, a prevalência de hipertensão em 21% dos pacientes, mas ao considerar a aferição da pressão arterial e uso de medicamentos, o percentual de adultos com pressão arterial ≥140/90 mmHg foi de 32%. Sabe-se que a falta de controle da pressão arterial pode elevar o risco de ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares, como infarto agudo do miocárdio, insuficiência cardíaca, acidente vascular cerebral, doenças renais, entre outros. Isso consequentemente pode causar problemas crônicos que reduzem a qualidade de vida do indivíduo, e até mesmo o óbito. Além de toda carga da doença gerada ao paciente, a HAS ainda está relacionada a uma carga econômica. PERGUNTA

The cost implication of primary prevention in the HOPE 3 trial.

AIMS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

Cost-benefit analysis of the polypill in the primary prevention of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is a public health priority. To assess the costs and benefits of a Polypill Prevention Programme using a daily 4-component polypill from age 50 in the UK, we determined the life years gained without a first myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, together with the total service cost (or saving) and the net cost (or saving) per year of life gained without a first MI or stroke. This was estimated on the basis of a 50 % uptake and a previously published 83 % treatment adherence. The total years of life gained without a first MI or stroke in a mature programme is 990,000 each year in the UK. If the cost of the Polypill Prevention Programme were £1 per person per day, the total cost would be £4.76 bn and, given the savings (at 2014 prices) of £2.65 bn arising from the disease prevented, there would be a net cost of £2.11 bn representing a net cost per year of life gained without a first MI or stroke of £2120. The results are robust to sensitivity analyses. A national Polypill Prevention Programme would have a substantial effect in preventing MIs and strokes and be cost-effective.

Comparison of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination and free combination: adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization and costs.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination (SPC) is associated with improved persistence, adherence and reduced healthcare utilization and costs compared to the corresponding free combination (FC). METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) patients covered by commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance in the Truven MarketScan database with hypertension (HTN) diagnosis between October 2009 and December 2011 were included. At least two filled prescriptions for the SPC cohort or two periods of minimum 15 days of concurrent use of amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) for the FC cohort were required. Cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) to balance on important confounders. Outcomes included: 1) adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and medication possession ratio [MPR]); 2) persistence (treatment gap >30 days); 3) all-cause and HTN-specific healthcare utilization and costs at 12 months. RESULTS: After cohort matching with PSM, patients taking SPC (N = 9221) exhibited better outcomes than FC (N = 1884): higher mean adherence (85.7% vs. 77.0%), mean PDC (73.8% vs. 60.6%) and persistence (46.8% vs. 23.6%) (all p < 0.0001). Patients taking SPC were associated with higher odds of persistence (OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 3.08-4.02), MPR ≥80% (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 2.40-3.08) and PDC ≥80% (OR: 2.88; 95% CI: 2.55-3.26). After PSM, the SPC cohort exhibited statistically significantly lower mean number of resource utilization events compared to FC. Patients in the SPC cohort also had a statistically significantly (p < 0.05) lower percentage of patients with ≥1 all-cause hospitalization (15.0% vs. 18.2%), ≥1 all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (25.7 vs. 31.4%), and ≥1 ER HTN-specific visits (9.7% vs. 14.1%). The costs incurred by SPC cohort patients were 2.8% to 41.7% numerically lower than the FC cohort, statistically significant for all-cause ER costs ($430.6 vs. $549.5, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data indicate an association of the amlodipine/valsartan/HCT SPC with improved adherence and persistence vs. FC with no difference in overall healthcare or hypertension specific costs between the cohorts.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction assessment between LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, and hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, or carvedilol.

LCZ696 is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in development for treatments of hypertension and heart failure indications. In 3 separate studies, pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) potential was assessed when LCZ696 was coadministered with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), amlodipine, or carvedilol. The studies used a open-label, single-sequence, 3-period, crossover design in healthy subjects. Blood samples were collected to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of LCZ696 analytes (AHU377, LBQ657, and valsartan), HCTZ, amlodipine, or carvedilol (R[+]- and S[-]-carvedilol) for statistical analysis. When coadministered LCZ696 with HCTZ, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of AUCtau,ss of HCTZ and that of LBQ657 were within a 0.80-1.25 interval, whereas HCTZ Cmax,ss decreased by 26%, LBQ657 Cmax,ss increased by 19%, and the AUCtau,ss and Cmax,ss of valsartan increased by 14% and 16%, respectively. Pharmacokinetics of amlodipine, R(+)- and S(-)-carvedilol, or LBQ657 were not altered after coadministration of LCZ696 with amlodipine or carvedilol. Coadministration of LCZ696 400 mg once daily (qd) with HCTZ 25 mg qd, amlodipine 10 mg qd, or carvedilol 25 mg twice a day (bid) had no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. LCZ696, HCTZ, amlodipine, and carvedilol were safe and well tolerated when given alone or concomitantly in the investigated studies.

Pill burden in hypertensive patients treated with single-pill combination therapy--an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is a condition which in many cases is treated with more than one drug. Additionally, patients with hypertension often suffer from other concomitant diseases, such as diabetes mellitus or dyslipidemia, which adds to the number of pills that patients need to take (pill burden). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of this pill burden on patients with hypertension in clinical practice in Germany. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, observational study enrolled adult patients for whom their physician considered treatment with a single-pill combination of amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide as indicated. At the start of the observation period, physicians and patients filled in a respective questionnaire. RESULTS: The questionnaires of 7,101 patients and 905 physicians were analyzed. The survey among the patients showed that the majority of patients felt burdened by the high number of pills to be taken. This was also seen as a potential reason for medication errors. Approximately half of the patients would be willing to make an out-of-pocket payment for reducing the number of pills to half. The results of the physician questionnaire indicate that the physicians were well aware of the set of problems that is generally associated with the high pill burden and that there is a clear willingness to use combination products in order to reduce the pill burden. CONCLUSION: A high number of pills is considered a burden by the patients. This burden increases with the number of pills taken per day.

Determinants of masked hypertension in hypertensive patients treated in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that masked hypertension (MH) carries a cardiovascular risk similar to that of uncontrolled hypertension. AIMS: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and determinants of MH in patients treated for hypertension in a Canadian primary care setting. METHODS: Office blood pressure (OBP) was measured at baseline and after 3 months of valsartan-based therapy in 5636 hypertensive patients who had recorded their home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) for seven consecutive days at month 3 using an Omron HEM-711 apparatus. MH was defined in nondiabetic patients as an OBP <140/90 mmHg and an HBPM ≥135/85 mmHg, and in those with diabetes as an OBP <130/80 mmHg and an HBPM ≥125/75 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the 5636 patients, 1025 had diabetes. OBP was controlled at 3 months in 268 (26.1%) of them, but 167 (62.3%) had MH. OBP was controlled in 2728 (59.1%) of the 4611 patients without diabetes, and 935 (34.3%) of them had MH. Overall, 1102 patients had MH, representing 36.8% of patients with controlled OBP and 19.6% of the entire hypertensive study population. Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis in nondiabetic patients with controlled OBP at 3 months revealed that older age, male sex, higher body mass index and higher office systolic blood pressure were determinants of MH. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that one of five hypertensive patients and more than one of three with controlled OBP will have MH. MH is associated with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes, and in nondiabetics, with male sex, older age and obesity.

Real-life treatment patterns, compliance, persistence, and medication costs in patients with hypertension in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective patient data analysis was initiated to describe current treatment patterns of patients in Germany with arterial hypertension, with a special focus on compliance, persistence, and medication costs of fixed-dose and unfixed combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), amlodipine (AML) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) in Germany. METHODS: The study analyzed prescription data collected by general practitioners, using the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The database was searched for patients with the diagnosis hypertension (ICD-10 code I10) and treatment data in the period 09/2009 to 08/2010. Compliance was measured indirectly based on the medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was defined as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. Medication costs were assessed from the statutory health insurance perspective in Germany. RESULTS: In the IMS DA 406,888 observable patients in Germany were encoded with the diagnosis I10 essential hypertension. In total, 88,716 patients received prescriptions including ARBs, monotherapy (18.6%) or unfixed combinations with other anti-hypertensives (19.3%). The compliance with fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, either dual or with one other anti-hypertensive drug, was significantly better, compared to unfixed combinations (mean compliance 78.1% for fixed-dose vs 71.5% for unfixed combinations of ARB with HCT, p < 0.0001; mean compliance 79.4% vs 72.0%, p < 0.0001 if an additional anti-hypertensive medication was added). Fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, ARB with AML, dual only or prescribed with another anti-hypertensive medication resulted in a substantial increase of persistence, especially for patients on fixed-dose dual combinations (225.7 vs 163.6 days for ARB with HCT; 232.9 vs 178.4 days for ARB with AML, respectively). Fixed-dose combinations (varying from €1.38 to €2.20 per patient and day) were on average cheaper than unfixed combinations. LIMITATIONS: Persistence and compliance could be under- or over-estimated because their assessment was based on prescription information. For two thirds of 69,060 patients, data on compliance and persistence was missing. CONCLUSION: The study shows considerable variations in ARB treatment patterns among patients, with the majority of patients treated with fixed-dose or semi-fixed combination therapy. Fixed-dose combinations of ARBs with HCT and/or AML seem to result in better compliance and persistence compared to unfixed regimes of these drug classes, leading to reduction in all-cause hospitalizations, emphasizing the benefit and potential cost-savings of using fixed-dose regimes in a real-life general practice setting in Germany.

The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic assessment of the hypotensive effect after coadministration of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

The interactive hypotensive effect of the combination treatment of losartan (LOS) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was assessed using a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Intravenous coadministration of these drugs showed a prolonged and enhanced time-course of the hypotensive effect. A population PK analysis revealed the delayed elimination of LOS after coadministration. The time-course of the plasma renin activity (PRA) was measured, and showed a more continuative time profile after coadministration compared with the administration of LOS alone. An indirect response model was applied to describe the relationship between the PK of LOS and the PRA profile, and the E(max) value for the increase of the PRA by LOS was increased with the dose of HCTZ. Blood pressure was linked to the PRA through an effect compartment. The model successfully described the relationship between the doses of LOS and HCTZ and their interactive hypotensive effect. These results indicate that the interaction for blood pressure in the combination treatment of LOS and HCTZ can be estimated using the doses of the drugs and the PRA-mediated PK-PD model.

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.

Bioequivalence evaluation of a triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide generic product: a new bioequivalence index for fixed-dose combinations.

In this study, an open, double-blind, randomized, two-period, two-group crossover design was conducted in 14 healthy volunteers to study the bioequivalence of a fixed-dose generic product. After administration of test or reference products to each volunteer, both active ingredients were determined simultaneously in plasma samples using a developed and validated HPLC-UV method, and pharmacokinetic parameters, including C(max), T(max), AUC(0-t) , AUC(0∞), terminal elimination rate constant (λz), volume of distribution in steady state (Vd(ss)), mean residence time (MRT), clearance (Cl), terminal elimination rate constant (Kel) were determined in each subject using the standard non-compartmental approach. Statistical comparison showed that the test and reference products were bioequivalent in terms of both the rate and extent of bioavailability of both active ingredients. Finally, a new parameter named range overlap index (ROI) was introduced for the first time in this study in order to judge about the overall bioequivalence of the combination products. This parameter indicates the extent in which the two CI90% ranges of each parameter for two active ingredients overlap with each other. The ROI is suggested to be equal or more than 50% for two combination products in order to be known as bioequivalent. The ROI values of the bioequivalence-indicating parameters were 61.90%, 84.6%, and 76.0% for C(max), AUC(0--->12), and AUC(0--->∞), respectively, which are indicative for bioequivalence in all the cases.

Availability, price and affordability of cardiovascular medicines: a comparison across 36 countries using WHO/HAI data.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to rise. Successful treatment of CVD requires adequate pharmaceutical management. The aim was to examine the availability, pricing and affordability of cardiovascular medicines in developing countries using the standardized data collected according to the World Health Organization/Health Action International methodology. METHODS: The following medicines were included: atenolol, captopril, hydrochlorothiazide, losartan and nifedipine. Data from 36 countries were analyzed. Outcome measures were percentage availability, price ratios to international reference prices and number of day's wages needed by the lowest-paid unskilled government worker to purchase one month of chronic treatment. Patient prices were adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, procurement prices only for inflation. Data were analyzed for both generic and originator brand products and the public and private sector and summarized by World Bank Income Groups. RESULTS: For all measures, there was great variability across surveys. The overall availability of cardiovascular medicines was poor (mean 26.3% in public sector, 57.3% private sector). Procurement prices were very competitive in some countries, whereas others consistently paid high prices. Patient prices were generally substantially higher than international references prices; some countries, however, performed well. Chronic treatment with anti-hypertensive medication cost more than one day's wages in many cases. In particular when monotherapy is insufficient, treatment became unaffordable. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study emphasize the need of focusing attention and financing on making chronic disease medicines accessible, in particular in the public sector. Several policy options are suggested to reach this goal.

Recurrence of adverse drug reactions following inappropriate re-prescription: better documentation, availability of information and monitoring are needed.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a common, and often preventable, cause of hospital admission, especially in the elderly, and can occur during hospitalization. In this current opinion article, we present three cases of recurrence of a serious ADR due to re-prescription of a withdrawn medication that highlight the need for a system to prevent the undesirable re-prescription of medications withdrawn because of an ADR. In addition, we describe an electronic system that could help prevent undesirable re-prescription following an ADR. Such a system should document ADRs systematically at the patient level, make this information available to relevant healthcare providers and the patient, and flag re-prescription of the offending drug. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such a system would need to be determined.

Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its use in the treatment of hypertension and for stroke risk reduction in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [Hyzaar(R)] is a fixed-dose combination of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) losartan and the thiazide diuretic HCTZ. It is indicated for the treatment of hypertension (including as initial therapy in severe hypertension) and for stroke risk reduction in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Losartan/HCTZ is an effective combination therapy, lowering blood pressure (BP) to a greater extent than losartan or HCTZ alone in patients with hypertension. Other ARB/HCTZ fixed-dose combinations generally lowered BP to a greater extent than losartan/HCTZ in patients with hypertension, although whether this translates into improvements in cardiovascular outcomes is not known. In the LIFE study, losartan-based therapy was associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than atenolol-based therapy, mainly as a result of a reduced risk of stroke; the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus was also lower with losartan-based therapy. Losartan/HCTZ is a well tolerated combination therapy. Thus, losartan/HCTZ remains an important option in the treatment of hypertension, as well as being indicated to reduce stroke risk in patients with hypertension and LVH.

Adherence with multiple-combination antihypertensive pharmacotherapies in a US managed care database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the impact of multiple combination therapies on medication possession ratios (MPRs) in an antihypertensive naive population. METHODS: Data were collected using the Integrated Healthcare Information Solution's National Benchmark Database (January 1997 to June 2004). Data from patients who received 2-pill pharmacotherapy with valsartan or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) + amlodipine were compared with those from patients who received 3-pill therapy with valsartan + HCTZ + amlodipine as 3 free-drug components. MPR was calculated by dividing the total days' supply for the lower value in the case of individual drug components, or the number of days' supply in the case of FDC, by 365 (the number of days during the 1-year study period the medication regimen was prescribed). A general linear regression was then performed to determine the effect of treatment group on MPR, controlling for the demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Data from 908 patients were included (527 women, 381 men; mean age, 53.9 years; 2-pill treatment with valsartan + amlodipine, 224 patients; 2-pill treatment with valsartan/HCTZ + amlodipine, 619; and 3-pill therapy with valsartan + HCTZ + amlodipine, 65). The MPR values were 75.4%, 73.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (P = 0.005). MPR improved with age (69.6% in the subset aged 18-<36 years vs 75.2% in the subset aged >or=64 years; P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In these antihypertensive-naive patients with hypertension, MPR decreased with the increase in tablets per regimen, and improved MPR was correlated with increasing age. These findings suggest patient compliance improves with simplified pharmacotherapeutic approaches.

Assessment of adherence, persistence, and costs among valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide retrospective cohorts in free-and fixed-dose combinations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess medication adherence, persistence, and costs between cohorts of patients in managed care settings using a fixed-dose combination (FDC) or individual components (IC) of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in an insurance claims database. METHODS: Medical and prescription claims for hypertensive patients using a combination of valsartan and HCTZ were identified from the IHCIS National Managed Care Benchmark Database via a retrospective cohort analysis. Study subjects had at least 110 days prior to start of study medications during which no other antihypertensive medications were prescribed, and were followed for 12 months. Claims for 8711 adult patients were analyzed for adherence, persistence and costs. General linear regression was conducted to detect differences in adherence among groups. Covariates included age, gender, persistence, number on concomitant cardiovascular drugs, and number of cardiovascular diagnoses. RESULTS: Most subjects used an FDC product (N=8150, 93.6%) vs. the IC (N=561, 6.4%). The FDC group had a larger portion of males and less concomitant cardiovascular medications or disease. A random sample of 1628 of the FDC subjects had improved values for medication adherence compared to the IC group (62.1 vs. 53.0%, p<0.001) and persistence values were improved at both 180 days (73 vs. 28%, p<0.001) and 365 days (54 vs. 19%, p<0.001). Both prescription drug costs ($1587 vs. $2050, p<0.001) and medical costs ($3343 vs. $3817, p<0.001) were lower in the FDC cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fixed-dose therapy in hypertension may lead to increased adherence and persistence with a positive financial impact on both prescription and total medical costs. As with any retrospective claims database analysis, unobserved systematic differences between the two medication groups may exist.