Impact of the Commercialization of Three Generic Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Adverse Events in Quebec, Canada: A Population-Based Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Once the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from brand-name to generics may occur. Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparative bioavailability studies. Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level. We evaluated the impact of 3 generic angiotensin II receptor blockers commercialization on adverse events: hospitalizations or emergency room consultations. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an interrupted time series analysis using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Rates of adverse events for losartan, valsartan, and candesartan users (N=136 177) aged ≥66 years were calculated monthly, 24 months before and 12 months after generics commercialization. Periods before and after generics commercialization were compared by negative binomial segmented regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. For all users, there was a monthly mean rate of 100 adverse events for 1000 angiotensin II receptor blocker users before and after generic commercialization. Among generic users of losartan, valsartan, and candesartan, there was an increase in rates of adverse events of 8.0% (difference of proportions versus brand-name, 7.5% [95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 15.9%]; P=0.0643), 11.7% (difference of proportions, 17.1% [95% confidence interval, 9.9%-24.3%]; P<0.0001), and 14.0% (difference of proportions, 16.6% [95% confidence interval, 7.9%-25.3%]; P<0.0001), respectively, the month of generic commercialization. The monthly trend of adverse events was affected for generic versus brand-name losartan users only (difference of proportions, 2.0% [0.7%-3.4%]; P=0.0033) ≤1 year after generics commercialization. Similar results were found in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among generic users, immediate or delayed differences in adverse events rates were observed right after generic commercialization for 3 antihypertensive drugs. Rates of adverse events remained higher for generic users. Increases were more pronounced for generic candesartan, which is the studied product with the largest difference in comparative bioavailability. Risk and survival analysis studies controlling for several potential confounding factors are required to better characterize generic substitution.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of the polypill versus risk assessment for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: There is an international trend towards recommending medication to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals at increasingly lower cardiovascular risk. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population approach with a polypill including a statin (simvastatin 20 mg) and three antihypertensive agents (amlodipine 2.5 mg, losartan 25 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) and periodic risk assessment with different risk thresholds. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model for lifetime predictions of CVD events, diabetes, and death in 259 146 asymptomatic UK Biobank participants aged 40-69 years. We assessed incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for polypill scenarios with the same combination of agents and doses but differing for starting age, and periodic risk assessment with 10-year CVD risk thresholds of 10% and 20%. RESULTS: Restrictive risk assessment, in which statins and antihypertensives were prescribed when risk exceeded 20%, was the optimal strategy gaining 123 QALYs (95% credible interval (CI) -173 to 387) per 10 000 individuals at an extra cost of £1.45 million (95% CI 0.89 to 1.94) as compared with current practice. Although less restrictive risk assessment and polypill scenarios prevented more CVD events and attained larger survival gains, these benefits were offset by the additional costs and disutility of daily medication use. Lowering the risk threshold for prescription of statins to 10% was economically unattractive, costing £40 000 per QALY gained. Starting the polypill from age 60 onwards became the most cost-effective scenario when annual drug prices were reduced below £240. All polypill scenarios would save costs at prices below £50. CONCLUSIONS: Periodic risk assessment using lower risk thresholds is unlikely to be cost-effective. The polypill would become cost-effective if drug prices were reduced.

Dosage of angiotensin-II receptor blockers in heart failure patients following changes in Danish drug reimbursement policies.

PURPOSE: National reimbursement policies in Denmark were changed in November 2010 favouring a shift in angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) treatment to generic losartan for heart failure (HF) patients. We examined how changes in reimbursement policies affected the fraction of HF patients up-titrated to optimal or suboptimal ARB dosage. METHODS: A historical cohort study was performed including HF patients with at least one prescription of ARB in the months of May-Jul 2010 (baseline). Patients were considered up-titrated at doses 100, 16 or 160 mg for losartan, valsartan and candesartan, respectively. Individual-level linkage of nationwide registries of hospitalization and drug dispensing in Denmark was used to describe patterns of ARB prescriptions and estimate dosage before and after November 2010. Logistic regression models were used to assess the probability for being up-titrated in the period. RESULTS: Of 6036 individuals included (mean age 73.5 [standard deviation 11.2] years; 51% males), 3346 (55.4%) used losartan, 541 (9.0%) valsartan and 2149 (35.6%) candesartan at inclusion, respectively. 2887 (47.8%) were up-titrated at baseline (May-Jul 2010), followed by 2878 (48.2%) in the three months before the policy change (Aug-Oct 2010), and 2492 (43.7%) in the first months after the policy change (Feb-Apr 2011). Odds ratios for being up-titrated according to time period were 1.02 [0.95-1.09] in Aug-Oct 2010 (before policy change) and 0.84 [0.78-0.90] in Feb-Apr 2011 (after policy change), compared with May-Jul 2010 (reference). CONCLUSION: Probability of being up-titrated in ARB treatment was reduced 20% following changes in drug reimbursement policies.

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.

Impact of delisting ARBs, apart from losartan, on ARB utilisation patterns in Denmark: implications for other countries.

INTRODUCTION: Renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs have been a target for health authority initiatives across Europe with the potential for substantial savings once generic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) became available without compromising care. Recently, losartan was the first angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to lose its patent. In Denmark, the authorities removed all other ARBs from the reimbursement list, apart from losartan, as they were all seen as essentially similar for the management of hypertension or congestive heart failure at appropriate doses, but more expensive. Similarly, all other ARB fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), apart from losartan, were removed from the reimbursement list. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to (i) assess the impact of these reimbursement changes on the subsequent utilisation of losartan and other ARBs alone or as FDCs; (ii) assess changes in the prices of losartan and other ARBs post-generic losartan to calculate potential savings; and (iii) compare the impact of the policies in Denmark with other European countries to provide guidance. METHODOLOGY: This was a retrospective segmented regression analysis of an interrupted time-series design comparing utilisation patterns before and after the changes in ARB reimbursement status. Utilisation was measured in defined daily doses (DDDs). Changes in total expenditure and expenditure/DDD were also assessed over time. RESULTS: Losartan utilisation grew from 31 to 33 % of total single ARB utilisation before generic losartan, to 93 % by October 2011. There was a corresponding decrease in the utilisation of all other ARBs. Both changes were significant (p < 0.001). Total expenditure on single ARBs in 2011 was 77 % below 2009 levels despite a 16 % increase in utilisation. Estimated savings were 290.5 million Danish Kroner (DKK). A similar trend was seen for losartan FDCs, which was also significant (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Losartan utilisation grew appreciable following the changes. The change was much greater than seen in countries that had eased prescribing restrictions for losartan but not the other ARBs. Active therapeutic switching programmes plus education and financial incentives also significantly enhanced losartan utilisation following generics in two countries and regions; however, the increase in losartan utilisation was less than that seen in Denmark.

Are prescribing initiatives readily transferable across classes: the case of generic losartan in Scotland?

BACKGROUND: There are on-going initiatives in Scotland to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing in primary care. Activities to enhance prescribing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) versus angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) include prescribing guidance, guidelines, benchmarking, prescribing targets and financial incentives. These measures stabilised reimbursed expenditure for renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs between 2001 and 2007 despite a 159% increase in volumes. Generic losartan was included in the Drug Tariff from July 2010. As there is no appreciable difference between ARBs, and the prices of generic losartan are falling, health boards should be actively encouraging its prescribing. AIM: To primarily assess changes in utilisation patterns of losartan versus other ARBs after July 2010. Second, to assess the utilisation of generic versus originator losartan. METHOD: We used an interrupted time series analysis of ARB utilisation, measured in defined daily doses (DDDs) before and after July 2010. Utilisation data were obtained from the NHS National Services Scotland Corporate Warehouse. RESULTS: There was no significant change in the utilisation pattern of losartan or other ARBs combined before or after the introduction of generic losartan. Losartan accounted for 32% of total ARBs 12 months after listing. Between 98 and 99% of losartan was prescribed generically. In March 2012, the price of losartan was 88% below prepatent prices with potential savings of ?8m per year. CONCLUSION: Specific measures are needed to change prescribing habits especially with complex messages. The cost of deriving savings must be weighed against other quality initiatives and other ARBs losing or shortly losing their patents.

Impact of antihypertensive medication adherence on blood pressure control in hypertension: the COMFORT study.

BACKGROUND: It has not been fully elucidated whether antihypertensive medication adherence affects blood pressure (BP) control in hypertension cases. AIM: To investigate the association of adherence to antihypertensive drug regimens and BP control using data from the Combination Pill of Losartan Potassium and Hydrochlorothiazide for Improvement of Medication Compliance Trial (COMFORT) study. DESIGN: An observational analysis from a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 203 hypertensive subjects were randomly assigned to a daily regimen of a combination pill (losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) or two pills, an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a thiazide diuretic. Medication adherence calculated based on pill counts and BPs was evaluated at 1, 3 and 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: The subjects were divided into three groups according to their adherence, i.e. relatively low-adherence (<90%; n = 19), moderate-adherence (90-99%; n = 71) and high-adherence (100%; n = 113) groups. Clinical characteristics of the subjects including BP, sex, randomized treatments and past medical history did not differ significantly among the three groups. Achieved follow-up BPs over the 6-month treatment period, which were adjusted for age, sex, baseline BP and randomized treatment, were significantly higher in the low-adherence group (135/78 mmHg) compared with the high-adherence (130/74 mmHg; P = 0.02/0.02) and the moderate-adherence (128/74 mmHg; P = 0.003/0.02) groups. CONCLUSION: Low adherence to an antihypertensive-drug regimen was associated with poor BP control.

Influence of multiple initiatives in Sweden to enhance ARB prescribing efficiency following generic losartan; findings and implications for other countries.

BACKGROUND: Encouraging the prescribing of ACEIs first line vs. angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been a health authority focus with generic ACEIs as ACEIs and ARBs have similar effectiveness and there is limited coughing with ACEIs. This includes Sweden with its multiple initiatives keeping expenditure on renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs similar between 2001 and 2007 despite appreciably increased volumes. Generic losartan became available and was reimbursed in March 2010 providing further opportunities for the authorities in Sweden to save costs with all ARBs seen as similar in managing hypertension and CHF at appropriate doses. AIMS: The main aim of this study was to assess changes in the utilisation of losartan vs. other single ARBs after generic losartan alongside accompanying demand-side measures. Additional aims were to (i) assess changes in the price of generic losartan and single ARB expenditure over time; (ii) suggest additional programmes, if needed; and (iii) analyse utilisation of ARB FDCs and compare with ACEI FDCs. METHODS: Retrospective observational study using an interrupted time series design. RESULTS: Multiple demand-side measures introduced among the 21 Counties in Sweden significantly enhanced the utilisation of generic losartan, growing from 26% to 27% of total ARBs (DDD basis) before generic losartan to 40% by August 2011. Losartan was principally generics (97% by August 2011). Expenditure/DDD for generic losartan was 10% of the pre-patent loss price in August 2011. This reduced total single ARB expenditure by 26% by the study end despite a 16% increase in utilisation. Greater utilisation of ARB FDCs than seen with ACEI FDCs. This may be due to similarities in prices between single and FDC ARBs. DISCUSSION: Multiple demand-side measures appreciably enhanced ARB prescribing efficiency, mirroring other studies. No significant increase in losartan utilisation following generics was seen in European countries where no specific measures were instigated. Losartan price reduction was in line with expectations. CONCLUSION: Multiple and intensive demand-side measures are needed to change physician prescribing habits. Authorities cannot rely on physicians transferring their activities from one class to another without interventions.

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.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of valsartan versus losartan and the effect of switching.

OBJECTIVES: Losartan will shortly become generic, and this may encourage switching to the generic drug. However, valsartan was shown in a meta-analysis to be statistically superior in lowering blood pressure (BP) to losartan. This paper examines the costs of treatment with these two drugs and the potential consequences of switching established valsartan patients to generic losartan. METHODS: A US payer cost-effectiveness model was developed incorporating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events related to systolic blood pressure (SBP) control comparing valsartan to continual losartan and switching from valsartan to generic losartan. The model, based upon a meta-analysis by Nixon et al. and Framingham equations, included first CVD event costs calculated from US administrative data sets and utility values from published sources. The modeled outcomes were number of CVD events, costs and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY). RESULTS: Fewer patients had fatal and non-fatal CVD events with valsartan therapy compared with continual losartan and with patients switched from valsartan to generic losartan. The base-case model results indicated that continued treatment with valsartan had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,268 and $25,460 per life year gained, and $32,313 and $30,170 per QALY gained, relative to continual losartan and switching treatments, respectively. Sensitivity analyses found that patient discontinuation post-switching was a sensitive parameter. Including efficacy offsets with lowered adherence or discontinuation resulted in more favorable ratios for valsartan compared to switching therapy. LIMITATIONS: The model does not evaluate post-primary CVD events and considers change in SBP from baseline level as the sole predictor of CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan appears to be cost-effective compared to switching to generic losartan and switching to the generic drug does not support a cost offset argument over the longer term. Physicians should continue to consider the needs of individual patient and not cost offsets.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Influence of demand-side measures to enhance renin-angiotensin prescribing efficiency in Europe: implications for the future.

UNLABELLED: European countries strive to enhance prescribing efficiency. This includes renin-angiotensin drugs following the availability of generic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). AIMS: To compare angiotensin receptor blocker utilization and expenditure patterns in Austria and Croatia following prescribing restrictions, as well as with other European countries introducing different supply- and demand-side measures. Lastly, to appraise the impact of generic losartan in Croatia on utilization of patented angiotensin receptor blockers. METHOD: Observational retrospective study principally between 2001 and 2007, using defined daily doses and €/1000 inhabitants/year. Demand-side measures were based on the four 'E's - education, engineering, economics and enforcement. RESULTS: Greater intensity of follow-up of prescribing restrictions in Croatia enhanced utilization of ACEIs versus Austria. There was high utilization of ACEIs in Scotland following intensive demand-side measures, similar to Austria and Croatia. Demand-side measures in Spain (Catalonia) and Sweden also appeared to moderate angiotensin receptor blockers utilization. The combination of measures helped stabilize expenditure on renin-angiotensin drugs when adjusted for population sizes despite appreciable increases in volumes. The only exception was Portugal, with less intensive measures. CONCLUSION: Multiple and intensive demand-side measures enhanced prescribing efficiency. The more intense follow-up of ARB prescribing restrictions in Croatia had a greater influence on subsequent utilization patterns than Austria. Both findings confirm earlier studies. Reforms also favorably enhanced the prescribing of generic losartan once available.

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.

Pharmaco-economic consequences of losartan therapy in patients undergoing diabetic end stage renal disease in EU and USA.

Diabetic nephropathy is the most frequent cause of end stage renal disease (ESRD). As ESRD incidence increases continuously, more resources are needed for treatment. The objective was to evaluate the economic impact of losartan added to the standard care administered to diabetic subjects with ESRD. The analysis has involved more than 500 million inhabitants. Standard methods have been used in order to conduct an economic evaluation comparing the economic outcomes deriving from the administration of losartan added to standard care versus standard care alone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and nephropathy over 3.4 years. The study was hence conducted from the perspective of the third-party payer. The clinical outcome data were based on the results from the Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial. Direct medical costs are referred to the purchase costs of losartan and to the costs of hospitalization. The costs were discounted back at an annual rate of 3%. Also sensitivity analysis was performed. The RENAAL study showed that losartan confers strong renal protection in patients with DM and nephropathy. Losartan results into cost saving in all countries considered: 3,602.98€/Italy, 4,531.35€/France, 3,019.66€/Germany, 3,949.50€/Switzer-land, and 3,855.50€/US per patient. Results are not sensitive to both clinical and economic variables. In addition to the medical benefits, this analysis demonstrates the economic relevance of the treatment with losartan in DM patients affected by nephropathy.

Comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of candesartan and losartan in the management of hypertension and heart failure: a systematic review, meta- and cost-utility analysis.

The UK National Health Service (NHS) currently spends in excess of £250 million per annum on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure; with candesartan currently dominating the market. With the recent introduction of generic losartan, we set out to directly compare the branded market leader to its now cheaper alternative. The primary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of candesartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension and chronic heart failure, respectively. The secondary objective was to model their comparative incremental cost-effectiveness in a UK NHS setting. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Hypertension and Heart Group's specialist register, Medline (1950-February 2010), and Embase (1980-February 2010) were included in the search strategy. Selection criteria were randomised studies of candesartan versus losartan in adults (> 18 years). The main outcome measures were as follows: Hypertension: mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP. Heart failure: composite of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for management of heart failure. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eight (three of which met inclusion criteria) and zero trials compared candesartan directly with losartan in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, respectively. A between-treatment difference of -1.96 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.40 to -1.51] for trough diastolic BP and -3.00 mmHg (95% CI -3.79 to -2.22) for trough systolic BP in favour of candesartan was observed. Based on this differential, a 10-year Markov model estimates the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to exceed £40,000 for using candesartan in place of generic losartan. Candesartan reduces BP to a slightly greater extent when compared with losartan, however, such difference is unlikely to be cost-effective based on current acquisition costs, perceived NHS affordability thresholds and use of combination regimens. We could find no robust evidence supporting the superiority of candesartan over losartan in the treatment of heart failure. We therefore recommend using generic losartan as the ARB of choice which could save the UK NHS approximately £200 million per annum in drug costs.

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

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

Health-care costs of losartan and candesartan in the primary treatment of hypertension.

A recent study of two widely used angiotensin receptor blockers reported a reduced risk of cardiovascular events (-14.4%) when using candesartan compared with losartan in the primary treatment of hypertension. In addition to clinical benefits, costs associated with treatment strategies must be considered when allocating scarce health-care resources. The aim of this study was to assess resource use and costs of losartan and candesartan in hypertensive patients. Resource use (drugs, outpatient contacts, hospitalizations and laboratory tests) associated with losartan and candesartan treatment was estimated in 14,100 patients in a real-life clinical setting. We electronically extracted patient data from primary care records and mandatory Swedish national registers for death and hospitalization. Patients treated with losartan had more outpatient contacts (+15.6%), laboratory tests (+13.8%) and hospitalizations (+13.8%) compared with the candesartan group. During a maximum observation time of 9 years, the mean total costs per patient were 10,369 Swedish kronor (95% confidence interval: 3109-17,629) higher in the losartan group. In conclusion, prescribing candesartan for the primary treatment of hypertension results in lower long-term health-care costs compared with losartan.