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.

Assessment of the Cardiovascular Risk of Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment: Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data.

INTRODUCTION: Results from two long-term studies (ROADMAP and ORIENT) indicated a numerical imbalance in the number of cardiovascular deaths between the olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and placebo groups. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis to provide more complete information regarding OM-associated cardiovascular risks and/or benefits. METHODS: We created an integrated database based on 191 clinical trials from the OM development program. Events were identified and adjudicated by an independent, blinded clinical events committee. The incidence of major cardiovascular events and total mortality for OM versus placebo/active control were evaluated, and the effect of OM on cardiovascular mortality (main endpoint of interest) and morbidity was calculated using a two-stage approach (Tian method). RESULTS: A total of 46 studies (~27,000 patients) met the US FDA-specified inclusion criteria (phase II-IV randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies [OM-based monotherapy or combination, double-blind period ≥28 days] and adult patients). The incidence of known adjudicated endpoints in the analysis of all studies combined was low among OM (0.11-0.53 %) and placebo/active control (0.08-0.76 %) groups. For cardiovascular mortality, the estimated risk difference (OM vs. control) was 0.00070 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.0011 to 0.0024; p = 0.60); the risk difference for each endpoint was <1/1000, with no statistically significant difference between groups. Results were similar with and without ROADMAP and ORIENT. DISCUSSION: The results from this meta-analysis did not show a clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference in cardiovascular risk between OM and the placebo/active control groups, and thus did not corroborate the numerical imbalance observed in ROADMAP and ORIENT.