[Fixed drug combinations in hypertension: a budget impact analysis for the Spanish Health System on the marketing of a fixed combination of olmesartan/amlodipine]. / Las combinaciones fijas en hipertensión: análisis de impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud Español de la comercialización de la combinación fija de olmesartan/amlodipino.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a budget impact analysis (BIA) of olmesartan/amlodipine (20/5, 40/5 and 40/10mg) marketed as a fixed combination (FC) in its approved indication for the National Health System (NHS). DESIG: We developed a decision tree model in order to estimate usual hypertension treatment algorithm in Spanish clinical practice. SETTINGS: The BIA has been developed from the perspective of the NHS for a period of 3 years (years 2010-2012). PARTICIPANTS: Spanish hypertensive population ≥ 35 years old. INTERVENTIONS: Introduction into the market of a fixed combination (FC) olmesartan/amlodipine in Spain. PRIMARY MEASURES: Expected costs to be assumed by the Spanish NHS (RRP-VAT) for hypertensive population able to be treated with the FC versus currently assumed costs by the NHS with free combination olmesartan and amlodipine. RESULTS: Estimated pharmaceutical costs in hypertensive population treated with olmesartan and amlodipine (2 pills) would be €25.2M (1(st) year), €26.4M (2011), €27.6M (2012), with a total 3-year period of €79.2M. According to patient tree model, the population able to be treated with FC would be 71,283 patients (2010), with a growth rate of 4.8% in the successive years, which supposes an annual cost of €21.2M (2010), €21.8M (2011) and €22.4M (2012), with a total 3-year period of €65.4M. The BIA shows savings of €13.8M in a total 3-year period. CONCLUSION: The BIA of FC olmesartan/amlodipine could generate net savings of €13.8M for the NHS in the period ranging from years 2010 to 2012.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: controlled-release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-Combi) study.

As recommended by the guidelines such as JSH 2004, combination therapy with multiple agents is now being applied to many patients with hypertension. However, a pharmacoeconomic analysis of each therapy has not been fully undertaken in Japan, despite increasing societal interest. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of two calcium channel blockers, each coadministered with an angiotensin receptor blockade, was compared using data from the ADVANCE-Combi study. The ADVANCE-Combi study was a 16-week double-blind, randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of two combination therapies (controlled-release nifedipine [nifedipine CR] plus valsartan vs. amlodipine plus valsartan) on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. The incremental cost effectiveness of each cohort was compared from the perspective of insurers. The average total cost per patient was Japanese yen (JPY) 31,615 for the nifedipine CR treatment group and JPY 35,399 for the amlodipine treatment group (p < 0.001). The achievement rate of the target BP (SBP/DBP < 130/85 mmHg for patients aged under 60 years; SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for those aged 60 years and over) was significantly higher in the nifedipine CR treatment group (61.2%) than in the amlodipine treatment group (34.6%) (p < 0.001), with no difference in the incidence of drug-related adverse events. Accordingly, the base case economic analysis demonstrated that the nifedipine CR treatment group was dominant (more efficacious and less costly) to the amlodipine treatment group. This result was supported by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. These results indicate that nifedipine CR-based combination therapy is superior to amlodipine-based combination therapy for the management of essential hypertension in the Japanese population.

The pharmacoeconomic impact of amlodipine use on coronary artery disease.

The most frequent cause of mortality and morbidity in industrialized countries is coronary artery disease (CAD), which in Europe alone is responsible for around two million deaths per year. In 2001 it accounted for about 260,000 hospital discharges in Italy. The costs of CAD treatment in Italy--which were borne by the Italian state, the third-party payer--amounted to 800 million euros. We propose to assess the pharmacoeconomic implications of using amlodipine besylate treatment in Italy for patients with coronary artery disease. The study is based on a post-hoc cost-effectiveness analysis that compared standard care supplemented by amlodipine besylate with ordinary standard care over a 36-month time horizon. The clinical outcome data were based on the prospective randomized evaluation of vascular effect of norvasc trial (PREVENT). Direct medical costs referred to the purchase costs of amlodipine besylate and the cost of National Health Service (NHS) hospitalization. The costs were discounted back at an annual rate of 5%. Patients administered amlodipine besylate exhibited a significant risk reduction with respect to any major vascular event or procedure when compared to the placebo group. The reduction mainly referred to unstable angina events and revascularization procedures. We estimated that the total cost of adding amlodipine besylate to standard care amounted to 139,050 euros per 1000 patients treated for 36 months. This represents a cost of 1780 euros per patient remaining free of any vascular event. Results were sensitive to both clinical and economic variables. The incremental costs of the alternative therapy ranged from 296 euros to 5066 per patient free of any event in, respectively, the best and worst scenario. Amlodipine besylate therapy can be a cost-effective strategy for CAD treatment in Italy. Our economic evaluation demonstrated, first, that by reducing vascular events and the need for revascularization procedures savings were achieved in hospital expenditure, and, second, that such savings could significantly offset drug costs.

Results of a pilot pharmacotherapy quality improvement program using fixed-dose, combination amlodipine/benazepril antihypertensive therapy in a long-term care setting.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is common in older adults (aged > or =65 years). Treatment frequently requires multiple medications and can be expensive. OBJECTIVE: This study measured the impact of substituting low-dose, fixed-combination therapy using the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine and the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor benazepril for high-dose CCB monotherapy or dual therapy with a CCB and an ACE inhibitor on antihypertensive drug costs, the incidence of adverse events, and blood-pressure control. METHODS: A multicenter, pilot pharmacotherapy quality improvement program was undertaken in a long-term care facility setting. Consultant pharmacists reviewed pharmacy records and medical charts from long-term care facilities, identifying older patients with a diagnosis of hypertension who either took CCB concomitantly with an ACE inhibitor or experienced adverse events on high-dose CCB therapy. Eligible patients were identified and their physicians contacted regarding switching them to fixed-dose combination therapy. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients at 17 facilities were switched to fixed-dose amlodipine/benazepril combination therapy; 94.1% were women and 5.9% were men (mean age, 85.1 years; range, 64-99 years). The mean number of comorbidities was 1.6. During the subsequent 2 months, mean blood pressure remained at levels similar to those at baseline. The number of patients reporting at least 1 drug-related adverse event decreased by 81.8% (P < 0.05), and the incidence of edema decreased by 75.0%. The mean per-patient cost of antihypertensive drugs decreased by 33.1% (P < 0.001), a mean per-patient savings of 19.21 US dollars per month. CONCLUSION: In patients aged > or =65 years with hypertension in long-term care facilities, a change from high-dose CCB monotherapy or CCB/ACE-inhibitor dual therapy to fixed-dose combination amlodipine/benazepril therapy significantly reduced drug costs and the incidence of adverse events and maintained blood-pressure control.

Comparison of 24-hour blood pressure profiles in patients with hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare 24-hour blood pressure control and adverse effects in patients with essential hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine. DESIGN: Open-label, one-way crossover study. SETTING: Cardiac clinic and patients' homes. PATIENTS: Twenty-five patients with stage I or II essential hypertension stabilized with amlodipine for at least 3 months, of whom 21 patients completed the study. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring while receiving amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day. Patients then were switched to nisoldipine 10 mg/day (> or = 65 yrs old) or 20 mg/day (< 65 yrs old) and returned to the clinic at 2-week intervals to assess cuff blood pressure, heart rate, adverse effects, and compliance. No adverse effects were experienced in 15 of the 25 patients. Lower extremity edema was the most commonly reported adverse effect (four patients). Two patients discontinued treatment because of pulmonary edema in one and chest pain in the other. Two patients were lost to follow-up. After a mean of 10.6 weeks, repeat 24-hour ambulatory monitoring was performed to evaluate blood pressure control with nisoldipine. Systolic and diastolic ambulatory results for daytime, nighttime, and total 24 hours were calculated. For amlodipine versus nisoldipine, no significant differences existed in any of the blood pressure parameters (p>0.05) in the 21 patients who completed the study, except for 24-hour diastolic pressure (p<0.05); however, this latter difference was only 2 mm Hg (nisoldipine 77 mm Hg, amlodipine 75 mm Hg). CONCLUSION: Both amlodipine and nisoldipine have similar 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure profiles. The frequency of lower extremity edema was no different after the switch to nisoldipine than when the patients were taking amlodipine.

Pharmacist-managed hypertension therapy conversion.

The cost of treating hypertension represents a substantial percentage of total pharmacy expenditures at medical centers and by managed care organizations in the United States. The present study evaluated improvements in blood pressure control and cost savings achieved by switching 543 hypertensive patients from nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) to amlodipine and concurrently instituting an educational program directed at prescribers, nursing and pharmacy staff, and patients and family members. Before the switch, 543 patients were being treated with nifedipine GITS: 259 with 30 mg/d, 209 with 60 mg/d, and 75 with 90 mg/d. The total annual cost of primary antihypertensive therapy for this patient population was $184,698. All patients were switched from nifedipine GITS to 5 mg of amlodipine. The pharmacist saw patients at the time of the switch and at 2, 4, and 6 to 8 weeks after the change in antihypertensive therapy. Patients who did not achieve systolic blood pressure < or = 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg by 6 to 8 weeks after the switch were titrated to 10 mg/d amlodipine. After the conversion, 417 patients were receiving amlodipine 5 mg/d and 126 patients were ultimately titrated to 10 mg/d. Measurements made during the first 6 to 8 weeks of treatment indicated that amlodipine therapy significantly reduced blood pressure. Overall, amlodipine produced further mean reductions in blood pressure, from 140/82 to 130/76 mm Hg (p < 0.00005). The mean reduction from the time of the switch to 6 to 8 weeks was from 138/81 to 129/74 mm Hg for the patients who received 5 mg/d amlodipine (p < 0.00001) and from 147/85 to 133/79 mm Hg for the patients ultimately titrated to 10 mg/d amlodipine (p < 0.05). The total annual cost for primary antihypertensive therapy after the conversion was $136,854. We observed that conversion from nifedipine GITS to amlodipine enhanced blood pressure control and saved $47,844 in the annual cost of primary antihypertensive medication. For the 543 patients undergoing the switch, annual cost savings was $47,844. When the cost of additional antihypertensive agents discontinued after the switch to amlodipine was added to the analysis, the net annual cost savings increased to $49,578, a 27% reduction in yearly drug costs.

Efficacy and safety of a therapeutic interchange from high-dose calcium channel blockers to a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/benazepril in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Recent hypertension trials have demonstrated the importance of achieving goal blood pressures to reduce the risk of target organ damage. In patients with moderate to severe hypertension, the use of high-dose monotherapy and/or combinations of drugs are necessary to achieve these goals. Fixed-dose combination products may be useful in these patients by reducing the number of daily doses required to control blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a therapeutic interchange between high-dose calcium channel blocker therapy and a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/ benazepril (Lotrel; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, USA) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension. METHODS: A total of 75 patients were switched from amlodipine (n = 25), felodipine (n = 25), and nifedipine-GITS (n = 25) to amlodipine/benazepril. Twenty-eight of the 75 patients (37%) were taking either a beta-blocker or a diuretic in addition to the high-dose calcium channel blocker prior to the switch. Blood pressure control, side effects and the cost of the therapeutic interchange were evaluated in the year following the therapeutic interchange. RESULTS: Sixty-six of the 75 (88%) patients were successfully switched with maintenance of blood pressure control and without the development of new dose-limiting side effects. Reasons for treatment failure after the therapeutic interchange included loss of blood pressure control in five patients and the development of new dose-limiting side effects in four patients. These side effects included cough in three patients and rash in one patient. After accounting for differences in drug acquisition cost and costs related to the switch (clinic and emergency room and laboratory tests), a cost savings of $16030 for all 75 patients was realised in the first year. The per patient-per year cost savings was $214. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that a therapeutic interchange from selected high-dose calcium channel blockers to a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/ benazepril can be successfully accomplished in the majority of patients.

[CEA comprehensive evaluation for Western and traditional Chinese hypotensive drugs].

OBJECTIVE: To make a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comprehensive evaluation for 4 hypotensive drugs, by observing the effects of drugs on blood pressure lowering, symptom improving, and adverse effect and quality of life (QOL) influencing. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-two patients with mild to moderate hypertension were divided into 4 groups at random and treated with compound Lingjiao Jiangya Pill, benazepril, amlodipine and indapamide respectively with a therapeutic course of 6 weeks. QOL was measured with FS-36 questionnaire and efficacy policy model was applied for comprehensive evaluation of CEA. RESULTS: Through CEA a comprehensive evaluation was made in order as follows: indapamide 3.65 which was the best, and then Lingjiao Jiangya Pill 3.55, amlodipine 2.90 and benazepril 2.35. CONCLUSION: The 4 drugs can not only lower blood pressure but also improve clinical symptoms with less adverse effect. It is of great practical significance to evaluate hypotensive drugs by combining QOL appraisal. The position of Lingjiao Jiangya Pill in CEA order suggests that more attention should be paid to herbal hypotensive drugs.

A comparison of nisoldipine ER and amlodipine for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension.

This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine extended release (10-40 mg) and amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) in 161 patients. The primary end point was a between-treatment comparison of change from baseline to week 8 in mean office diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The least squares mean reductions in systolic (S)BP/DBP (+/- standard error) for nisoldipine and amlodipine were -11.7/-9.3 +/- 1.4/0.8 and -14.3/-12.0 +/- 1.4/0.8 mmHg, respectively. The DBP treatment difference was 2.7 mmHg (90% confidence interval: 1.1 to 4.3 mmHg; p = 0.005). Tolerability profiles were similar between treatments. The drug acquisition cost per mmHg DBP reduction was 40% lower with nisoldipine; an acquisition cost analysis revealed that amlodipine was 80% more expensive than nisoldipine for treating hypertension. In summary, nisoldipine and amlodipine provide clinically equivalent antihypertensive efficacy; however, nisoldipine is more economical than amlodipine.

Evaluation of amlodipine dosing for conversion of nifedipine extended-release to amlodipine in the treatment of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriate dosing of amlodipine when converting patients from nifedipine extended-release (nifedipine ER) to amlodipine in the treatment of hypertension. METHODS: Patients of the Outpatient Clinic of Cheyenne Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Wyoming, receiving nifedipine ER for the management of hypertension (systolic BP or SBP > 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP or DBP > 90 mm Hg), participated in this study. Nifedipine ER was changed to amlodipine on entry into this study. An inclusion criterion was the BP had to be under control (SBP < 140 mm Hg and DBP < 90 mm Hg) before the switch. The BP in each study patient was monitored once weekly (once every 2 wk in some patients) for a total of six clinic visits or until BP was under control. Dosing titration of amlodipine was required in 16 of 27 patients after the switch. To assess the adequacy of the conversion, the statistical significance of the difference of the mean BP values before and at the end of the monitoring period was estimated by using the t-test for paired data. RESULTS: Twenty-seven male patients completed this study. BP in all study patients was adequately controlled after nifedipine ER was switched to amlodipine. The SBP and DBP values before and after the switch were similar (SBP: 124 +/- 12 vs. 126 +/- 9 mm Hg, CI of the mean difference -6.10 to 1.80; DBP: 76 +/- 8 vs. 76 +/- 7 mm Hg, CI of the mean difference -2.45 to 3.63). Initial amlodipine dose of 5 or 10 mg once daily was used in our study. No serious adverse effects were observed in any of the study patients after the drug switch. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the amlodipine dosage of 5 or 10 mg once daily can be used when nifedipine ER is converted to amlodipine in the treatment of hypertension. Dosage titration of amlodipine may be required to obtain adequate control of BP.