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.

[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.

Initiatives to enhance renin-angiotensin prescribing efficiency in Austria: impact and implications for other countries.

AIM: To assess the utilization of renin-angiotensin drugs, including combinations, in Austria in practice given the limited availability of diuretics, as well as the impact of recent reforms and initiatives on the utilization and expenditure of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), following prescribing restrictions on ARBs immediately after their introduction. METHODS: Utilization of dispensed prescriptions in ambulatory care was captured from 2001 to 2007 using defined daily doses as well as defined daily doses/1000 inhabitants/day for patients covered by the social health-insurance system. The data were provided by the internal data warehouse of Hauptverband der Osterreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger. Total costs in Euros were used for the analysis to facilitate comparisons with earlier studies. RESULTS: There was appreciable utilization of fixed-dose diuretic combinations at between 36 and 38% of all renin-angiotensin products, in line with expectations. The reduction in expenditure/defined daily dose for originator and generic ACEis and their combinations is, again, in line with expectations, mirroring earlier findings for proton pump inhibitors and statins. ARB utilization was just under 27% of all renin-angiotensin products. This is higher than the low utilization rates seen with atorvastatin following its prescribing restrictions, and may reflect the difficulties if restrictions are based on subjective criteria. ARB utilization rates were lower or similar to other countries, who have implemented a different range of demand-side reforms to limit their prescribing with the advent of generic ACEis. CONCLUSION: The results confirm the successful implementation of the latest pricing policies and demand-side measures for generics and originators in Austria. We believe the prescribing restrictions for ARBs reduced their utilization in practice and offer an alternative approach to other demand-side measures.

Cost-effectiveness of losartan in diabetic nephropathy: a Greek perspective.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic nephropathy is the primary cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), which involves substantial economic burden. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the potential effect of losartan on the costs associated with ESRD in patients with diabetic nephropathy in a Greek setting. A secondary aim was to approximate the direct health care cost of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in Greece. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare losartan with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Clinical data were derived from the RENAAL study. All costs were calculated from the perspective of the Greek social insurance system, in 2003 euros. Future costs were discounted at 3%. The time horizon was 3.5 years. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The reduction in the number of ESRD days over 3.5 years in patients treated with losartan reduced ESRD-related costs by 3,056.54 euros, resulting in net cost savings of 1,665.43 euros per patient. Net cost savings increase thereafter, increasing to 2,686.48 euros per patient over a period of 4.0 years. The results were robust under a wide range of plausible assumptions. The weighted mean daily cost of RRT was estimated at 90.97 euros per patient. The total economic burden of RRT for the year 2003 has been estimated at 304.773 million euros. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that treatment of patients with diabetic nephropathy in Greece with losartan is cost-effective, as it leads to important savings for the social insurance system by slowing the progression to ESRD.

Cost-effectiveness of irbesartan 300 mg given early versus late in patients with hypertension and a history of type 2 diabetes and renal disease: a Canadian perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Irbesartan in Reduction of Microalbuminuria trial and the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial found that irbesartan is renoprotective in patients having hypertension with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether treatment with irbesartan is cost-effective in Canada relative to conventional care in this patient population and whether it is more cost-effective to treat patients early rather than later in the development of renal disease from the perspective of the Canadian health and social care system. METHODS: The analysis compared 3 alternative strategies for the management of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes and early renal disease: (1) conventional hypertensive treatment excluding the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonists (AIIRAs); (2) the early addition of irbesartan (an AIIRA) to conventional treatment; and (3) the late addition of irbesartan to conventional treatment. A Markov model was used to simulate the progression of renal disease (microalbuminuria to death) in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes over a 25-year time horizon. Transition probabilities were derived from the 2 randomized controlled trials. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with outcome measured in life-years gained (LYGs). RESULTS: The early addition of irbesartan during microalbuminuria was cost-saving and more effective than both delaying irbesartan treatment until advanced overt nephropathy (AON) (0.45 LYG, Can $54,100 saved) and conventional antihypertensive use (0.62 LYG, $68,400 saved). This was due to the increased drug costs associated with the use of irbesartan being offset by savings arising from delays in the development of overt nephropathy and the subsequent delay to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study results. CONCLUSIONS: The early use of irbesartan for patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes who have yet to develop overt nephropathy is both more effective and less costly than delaying irbesartan treatment until AON and conventional antihypertensive use. Analysis suggests that the earlier irbesartan is added to conventional antihypertensive treatment, the greater the delays in the onset of ESRD and the overall savings in health care resource utilization from the perspective of the Canadian health and social care system.

Cost-effectiveness of losartan-based therapy in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: a UK-based economic evaluation of the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study.

The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrated the clinical benefit of losartan-based therapy in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), mainly due to a highly significant 25% reduction in the relative risk of stroke compared with an atenolol-based regimen, for a similar reduction in blood pressure. The aim of this economic evaluation was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol from a UK national health system perspective. Quality-adjusted survival and direct medical costs were modelled beyond the trial using the within-trial incidence of stroke. Survival with stroke, study medication use and quality of life by stroke status were taken directly from the LIFE trial. The LIFE data were supplemented with UK data on lifetime direct medical costs of stroke and life expectancy in individuals without stroke. No additional stroke events or use of study treatment were assumed beyond the trial. Costs and benefits were discounted using current UK Treasury rates. In the base-case analysis, the reduction in stroke-related costs (by 968 sterling pound) offset 86% of the increase in study medication costs (1128 sterling pound) among losartan-treated patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for losartan versus atenolol in hypertensive patients with LVH was 2130 sterling pound per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (3195 Euro/QALY), and this increased to 11,352 sterling pound per QALY gained (16,450 Euro/QALY) when the costs of stroke beyond the first 5 years were excluded. Thus, the clinical benefit of losartan was achieved at a cost well within reported thresholds for cost-effectiveness.