The national financial burden of guideline directed medical therapy for heart failure patients from 2013 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Guideline Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) has been revolutionary in improving outcomes of heart failure patients. However, with the addition of more medication classes, the annual cost of these medications on the US healthcare system needs further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate the trend of annual cost of GDMT from 2013 to 2021 using the Medicare-part D Database. METHODS: Using Medicare Part D database (2013-2021), we determined the number of beneficiaries receiving these drugs, the total number of 30-day fills for each medication, and the total annual spending on these medications. Linear regression was used to analyze data using Python Programming Language. P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The estimated annual Medicare- part D spending on empagliflozin had a 50 % increase in cost between 2020 and 2021, which could be attributed to its FDA approval for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Empagliflozin cost Medicare 3.73 billion USD in 2021 alone. In addition, sacubitril-valsartan had a strong trajectory since its introduction to the market in 2015. Since its approval in July 2015, it cost Medicare 4.51 billion USD. The Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist class was the least costly class of GDMT. CONCLUSION: The rise in the cost of GDMT is not proportionate amongst the different classes of GDMT. Newer classes of medications cast a significant cost on Medicare in recent years.

Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.

Conflicting Perspectives on the Value of Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure Revealed During Development of a Decision Aid Focusing on Patient Costs for Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about rising costs in health care, cost is rarely an issue discussed by patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions in a clinical setting. This study aimed to understand stakeholder perspectives on a patient decision aid (PtDA) meant to help patients with heart failure choose between a generic and relatively low-cost heart failure medication (ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker) and a newer, but more expensive, heart failure medication (angiotensin II receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor). METHODS AND RESULTS: Feedback on the PtDA was solicited from 26 stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and the manufacturer. Feedback was recorded and discussed among development team members until consensus regarding both the interpretation of the data and the appropriate changes to the PtDA was reached. Stakeholders found the PtDA sufficient in clarifying the different treatment options for heart failure. However, patients, physicians, and the manufacturer had different opinions on the importance of highlighting cost in a PtDA. Patients indicated issues of cost were crucial to the decision while physicians and manufacturers expressed that the cost issue was secondary and should be de-emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified perspectives on the role of cost in medical decision-making expressed by our participants underscore the importance and challenge of having clear, frank discussions during clinic visits about treatment cost and perceived value.

Fabrication of Ultra-Pure Anisotropic Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles via Simple and Cost-Effective Route: Implications for UTI and EAC Medications.

The purposes of this work are to evaluate the antimicrobial, antibiofilm, anticancer, and antioxidant abilities of anisotropic zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) synthesized by a cost-effective and eco-friendly sol-gel method. The synthesized ZnO NPs were entirely characterized by UV-Vis, XRD, FTIR, HRTEM, zeta potential, SEM mapping, BET surface analyzer, and EDX elemental analysis. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of ZnO NPs were investigated against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria and yeast causing serious diseases like urinary tract infection (UTI). The anticancer activity was performed against Ehrlich ascites carcinoma (EAC). Additionally, antioxidant scavenging activity against 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) was observed. The synthesized ZnO NPs exhibited an absorption peak at 385.0 nm characteristic to the surface plasmon resonance (SPR). Data obtained from HRTEM, SEM, and XRD confirmed the anisotropic crystalline nature of the prepared ZnO NPs with an average particle size of 68.2 nm. The calculated surface area of the prepared ZnO NPs was 10.62 m2/g and the porosity was 13.16%, while pore volume was calculated to be 0.013 cm3/g and the average pore size was about 3.10 nm. The prepared ZnO NPs showed promising antimicrobial activity against all tested UTI-causing pathogens. It showed a prominent antimicrobial capability against Candida tropicalis with a zone of inhibition (ZOI) reaching 22.4 mm, 13 mm ZOI for Bacillus subtilis, and 12.5 mm ZOI for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Additionally, the prepared ZnO NPs showed enhanced biofilm repression of about 79.33%, 72.94%, and 33.68% against B. subtilis, C. tropicalis, and P. aeruginosa, respectively. Moreover, the prepared ZnO NPs had a powerful antioxidant property with 33.0% scavenging ability after applied DPPH assay. Surprisingly, upon ZnO NPs treatment, cancer cell viability reduced from 100 to 58.5% after only 24 h due to their unique antitumor activity. Therefore, according to these outstanding properties, this study could give insights for solving serious industrial, pharmaceutical, and medical challenges, particularly in the EAC and UTI medications.

The cost-effectiveness of irbesartan for hypertension.

High blood pressure is a very common problem in the adult and elderly population, both in developed and developing countries. A relatively large number of drug classes are available to treat this condition and prevent its complications, which are not only more frequent in the aforementioned patients but also those affected by metabolic syndrome and/or Type 2 diabetes. Irbesartan is an angiotensin-receptor blocker class drug with good antihypertensive efficacy and specific pharmacological characteristics, whose efficacy has been more deeply evaluated in metabolically complex hypertensive patients. In this review, the authors will analyze its effectiveness in preventing or delaying organ damage in hypertensive patients, with a closer look at the economic implications of treating hypertension with irbesartan in the context of available antihypertensive drugs.

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.

The role of irbesartan in the treatment of patients with hypertension: a comprehensive and practical review.

Irbesartan is an orally active angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) whose pharmacological profile differs significantly from those of many other compounds of the same class. In particular, according to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, irbesartan has a high bioavailability, a long duration of action and a small potential for pharmacological interactions due to the nature of the enzymatic pathway involved in its metabolic process. Morbidity data with irbesartan have been mainly accumulated in patients with renal impairment where the drug has demonstrated the most remarkable evidence of efficacy among the ARBs class, regardless of the stage of the renal disease (from early to late) and the length of the observational period. The efficacy of irbesartan has also been demonstrated in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and congestive heart failure. The drug is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and renal impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and hypertension, and its tolerability and safety profile have been extensively investigated and reported to be similar to placebo. From the pharmacoeconomic point of view, treating patients with T2D, hypertension and overt nephropathy using irbesartan was both a cost- and life-saving procedure compared with the use of amlodipine and standard antihypertensive treatment in an Italian setting. The role of irbesartan in the management of hypertension with or without T2D and renal impairment is clearly recognized by national and international guidelines and largely acknowledged by the medical community according to the efficacy of the drug in the prevention of cardiovascular risk in addition to and beyond kidney prevention.

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.

Differences in pharmacology and their translation into differences in clinical efficacy--a comparison of the renin angiotensin blocking agents irbesartan and losartan.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Guidelines recommend five antihypertensive drug classes, but which particular drug to choose is up to the treating physician. We aimed at an in-depth comparison of two frequently used angiotensin receptor blockers to provide evidence for this decision. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: Pharmacology of irbesartan and losartan, their blood-pressure-lowering efficacy, their tolerability/safety, end-organ protective effects and economic evaluation. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: Both drugs differ in their oral bioavailability, potential for food interactions, degree of metabolism, dosing interval, time to peak, volume of distribution and terminal half-life. Irbesartan provides a greater and longer-lasting antihypertensive effect and was determined to be cost effective over losartan in Denmark and Sweden. Irbesartan was more effective in preventing deterioration of kidney function in patients with diabetic nephropathy, being cost effective from a German perspective. There is only one end point trial for either drug in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, heart failure and atrial fibrillation, but no direct comparison. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: There is an incremental clinical benefit of irbesartan over losartan in the treatment of hypertension and diabetic nephropathy which can be substantiated by corresponding preclinical study evidence. This has translated into an economic benefit in a number of country-specific evaluations.

Management of hypertension with fixed dose combinations of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide: patient perspectives and clinical utility.

Hypertension treatment and control is largely unsatisfactory when guideline-defined blood pressure goal achievement and maintenance are considered. Patient- and physician-related factors leading to non-adherence interfere in this respect with the efficacy, tolerability, and convenient use of pharmacological treatment options. Blockers of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) are an important component of antihypertensive combination therapy. Thiazide-type diuretics are usually added to increase the blood pressure lowering efficacy. Fixed drug-drug combinations of both principles like candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) are highly effective in lowering blood pressure while providing improved compliance, a good tolerability, and largely neutral metabolic profile. Comparative studies with losartan/HCTZ have consistently shown a higher clinical efficacy with the candesartan/HCTZ combination. Data on the reduction of cardiovascular endpoints with fixed dose combinations of antihypertensive drugs are however scarce, as are the data for candesartan/HCTZ. But many trials have tested candesartan versus a non-RAS blocking comparator based on a standard therapy including thiazide diuretics. The indications tested were heart failure and stroke and particular emphasis was put on elderly patients or those with diabetes. In patients with heart failure, for example, the fixed dose combination might be applied in patients in whom individual titration resulted in a dose of 32 mg candesartan and 25 mg HCTZ which can then be combined into one tablet to increase compliance with treatment. Also in patients with stroke the fixed dose combination might be used in patients in whom maintenance therapy with both components is considered. Taken together candesartan/HCTZ assist both physicians and patients in achieving long-term blood pressure goal achievement and maintenance.

[Economics of nephroprotection in arterial hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus].

Based on results of large-scale controlled trials of irbesartan (I), valsartan (V) and amlodipine (A) (PRIME and MARVAL) we carried out the Markov s modeling of their pharmacoeconomic parameters in arterial hypertension (AH) combined with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM 2) and microalbuminuria (MAU) projected for 8-years perspective. Cost and efficacy was evaluated taking into account years of life gained and outcomes of concomitant diseases and complications. Indexes of cost/efficacy (C/E) were calculated for each drug. Among investigated drugs I appeared to be the most economic at the account of retardation of development of terminal nephropathy and cardiovascular diseases. The use of I compared with V could save 565300 rub/100 patients/year. C/E of I was 26.5 and 37.4% lower that those of V and A, respectively. Costs of year of life saved was 12716, 16432, and 18325 for I, V, and A, respectively. Comparative pharmacoeconomic modeling of 8-year economic perspectives of I, V and A demonstrated financial benefits of I.

Cost-effectiveness of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension: an economic evaluation for Sweden.

Irbesartan, an angiotensin-II inhibitor, has been shown to be an effective antihypertensive agent in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of irbesartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in Swedish health-care setting by predicting clinical events and life years based upon observed reductions in blood pressure in clinical trials. The cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment with irbesartan compared with placebo and to other selected angiotensin-II inhibitors (losartan, valsartan, candesartan) in combination with HCTZ was estimated using a Markov model. The incidence of cardiovascular disease was obtained from the Swedish inpatient registry, whereas the risk reductions associated with antihypertensive therapy were taken from the medical literature. Costs for antihypertensive therapy and for treatment of cardiovascular events were included, and the health effects were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The study was conducted from a health-care payer perspective. For a 55-year-old male, irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was a dominant strategy (better health effects at lower costs) when compared with losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and valsartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg, and the cost-effectiveness ratio compared with placebo was 3500 euros per QALY gained. In moderate-to-severe hypertension, irbesartan was cost-effective compared with losartan, whereas the results compared with candesartan were mixed. High-dose combination therapy of irbesartan was also found to be cost-effective compared with low-dose combination therapy. The results from the model indicate that irbesartan provides a cost-effective antihypertensive treatment strategy compared with both placebo, and to valsartan and losartan.

Switch strategies in the management of hypertension: a cost minimisation analysis of angiotensin receptor blocker based regimen.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Budgetary pressures within health care systems have led many health care providers to consider the switching of patients on long term anti hypertensive medication to agents with the lowest acquisition price. The long term success of this strategy hinges on price differentials remaining stable, an assumption that may not be valid in drug classes where patent expiry times vary. The treatment of hypertension using angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) represents just such a case. The present study, therefore, modelled the 5-year cost consequences of treatment based on losartan, candesartan, valsartan and irbesartan, based on expected patent expiry dates. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed, applying dose-specific blood-pressure lowering and costs to a cohort of uncontrolled mild-moderate hypertensive patients and assessing the anticipated cost of treatment over a 5 year period. A probabilistic approach was adopted to account for between-patient and between-treatment differences. RESULTS: For both undiscounted and discounted models, a losartan-based regimen represents the least costly option of the four agents tested. Median (IQR) discounted expenditure per patient for each agent was: losartan: pound 506 ( pound 441- pound 650), candesartan: pound 610 ( pound 542- pound 766), valsartan: pound 809 ( pound 796- pound 1078), irbesartan pound 696 ( pound 694- pound 934). CONCLUSION: Switching hypertensive patients taking ARBs to the agent with the lowest current acquisition cost may yield only transient budgetary savings. Once patent expiry is taken into account, this model suggests that maintaining or switching patients to losartan would yield considerably greater savings over 5 years.

An Asian regional analysis of cost-effectiveness of early irbesartan treatment versus conventional antihypertensive, late amlodipine, and late irbesartan treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and nephropathy.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes, often leading to diabetic nephropathy, has increased globally, especially in Asia. Irbesartan treatment delays the progression of kidney disease at the early (microalbuminuria) and late (proteinuria) stages of nephropathy in hypertensive type 2 diabetics. This treatment has proven to be cost-effective in Western countries. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of early irbesartan treatment in Asian settings. METHODS: An existing lifetime model was reprogrammed in Microsoft Excel to compare irbesartan started at an early stage to irbesartan or amlodipine started at a late stage, and standard treatments from a health-care perspective in China, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, and Taiwan. The main effectiveness parameters were incidences of end-stage renal disease, time in dialysis, and life expectancy. All costs were converted to 2004 US$ using official purchasing power parity. Local data were obtained for costs, transplantation,dialysis, and mortality rates. Probabilities regarding disease progression after treatment with the investigated drugs were extracted from two published clinical trials. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Early use of irbesartan yielded the largest clinical and economic benefits reducing need for dialysis by 61% to 63% versus the standard treatment, total costs by 9% (Thailand) to 42% (Taiwan), and increasing life expectancy by 0.31 to 0.48 years. Early irbesartan had a 66% (Thailand) to 95% (Taiwan) probability of being dominant over late irbesartan. CONCLUSION: Although the absolute results varied in different settings, reflecting differences in epidemiology, management, and costs, early irbesartan treatment was a cost-effective alternative in the Asian settings.

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.

Irbesartan treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and renal disease: a UK health economics analysis.

The objective of the study was to determine the impact of irbesartan treatment on life expectancy (LE), costs and progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in hypertensive type 2 diabetes patients. A peer-reviewed and published Markov model was used to simulate progression from microalbuminuria to overt nephropathy, doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD and all-cause mortality in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Three treatment strategies were evaluated: (i) 'control' regimen of conventional antihypertensive therapy (excluding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-2-receptor antagonists and dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers), (ii) 'early irbesartan' 300 mg daily and (iii) 'late irbesartan' 300 mg daily (started when overt nephropathy developed). Transition probabilities determining nephropathy progression were taken from the Irbesartan in Reduction of Microalbuminuria-2 study, Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial and other published sources. Outcomes were projected over 25 years. The mean +/- SD cumulative incidence of ESRD was reduced by 8.8% +/- 0.6 and 12.4% +/- 0.7 in patients treated with early irbesartan compared with late irbesartan and control respectively. Early irbesartan treatment improved undiscounted LE by 1.38 +/- 0.08 years (discounted: 0.81 +/- 0.04 years) compared with late irbesartan and 1.41 +/- 0.08 years (discounted: 0.83 +/- 0.04 years) compared with control. Early irbesartan treatment was projected to save (mean +/- SD) pounds 2310 +/- 327 and pounds 3801 +/- 327 over patient lifetimes compared with late irbesartan and control respectively. Irbesartan treatment is predicted to improve survival and reduce costs in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria compared with 'control'. Early irbesartan treatment is more effective than late irbesartan. Irbesartan is a valuable treatment option in this patient group in a UK setting.

Health economic implications of irbesartan treatment versus standard blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and renal disease: a Hungarian analysis.

To perform a health economic analysis on treatment with irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. A Markov model was adapted to the Hungarian setting to simulate renal deterioration from the development of microalbuminuria to nephropathy, doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and all-cause mortality. Outcomes for two treatments were evaluated: (1) a placebo regimen of standard antihypertensive medications, and (2) the addition of irbesartan 300 mg administered daily, with both treatment initiated after developing microalbuminuria. Outcomes were discounted at 5% annually to correspond with national guidelines. Treatment with irbesartan was estimated to improve undiscounted life expectancy by 0.98 +/- 0.05 years, reduce the cumulative incidence of ESRD by 7.5 +/- 0.4%, and reduce lifetime costs by Hungarian Forints (HUF) 519,993 +/- 70,814, compared to placebo. Irbesartan was projected to improved life expectancy and reduce costs compared to placebo in the Hungarian setting in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.

A French cost-consequence analysis of the renoprotective benefits of irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a cost-consequence analysis in a French setting of the renoprotective benefit of irbesartan in hypertensive type 2 diabetes patients over a 25-year period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A previously published Markov model simulated progression from microalbuminuria to overt nephropathy, doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease and death. Three treatment strategies with analogous blood pressure control were compared: (A) control--conventionally medicated antihypertensive therapy (excluding angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, other angiotensin-2-receptor antagonists and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers) initiated at microalbuminuria; (B) early irbesartan--(300 mg daily added to control, initiated with microalbuminuria) and (C) late irbesartan--(300 mg daily, initiated with overt nephropathy). Probabilities came from the Irbesartan in Reduction of Microalbuminuria-2 study, Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial and other sources. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over 25 years. Annual discount rates were 3%. RESULTS: Compared to control, early use of irbesartan added (mean +/- standard deviation) 1.51 +/- 0.08 undiscounted life years (discounted: 0.94 +/- 0.05 years), while late irbesartan added 0.07 +/- 0.01 (0.04 +/- 0.01) years/patient. Early irbesartan added 1.03 +/- 0.06 discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), while late irbesartan added 0.06 +/- 0.01 QALYs. Early and late irbesartan treatments were projected to save 22,314 +/- 1273 euro and 6619 +/- 820 euro/patient, respectively versus control. Sensitivity analysis showed that even over short time horizons both irbesartan treatments were superior to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In France, early irbesartan treatment improved quality and length of life and reduced costs in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. Late irbesartan therapy is beneficial, but earlier irbesartan leads to better outcomes.

Candesartan cilexetil: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in chronic heart failure and hypertension.

The addition of candesartan cilexetil (Atacand, Amias, Blopress, Kenzen, Ratacand) to standard therapy for chronic heart failure (CHF) provided important clinical benefits at little or no additional cost in France, Germany and the UK, according to a detailed economic analysis focusing on major cardiovascular events and prospectively collected resource-use data from the CHARM-Added and CHARM-Alternative trials in patients with CHF and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. Results of a corresponding cost-effectiveness analysis showed that candesartan cilexetil was either dominant over placebo or was associated with small incremental costs per life-year gained, depending on the country and whether individual trial or pooled data were used. Preliminary data from a US cost-effectiveness analysis based on CHARM data also showed favourable results for candesartan cilexetil. Two cost-effectiveness analyses of candesartan cilexetil in hypertension have been published, both conducted in Sweden. Data from the SCOPE trial in elderly patients with hypertension, which showed a significant reduction in nonfatal stroke with candesartan cilexetil-based therapy versus non-candesartan cilexetil-based treatment, were incorporated into a Markov model and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro12 824 per QALY gained was calculated (2001 value). Another modelled cost-effectiveness analysis of candesartan cilexetil was based on the ALPINE trial, in which the incidence of new-onset diabetes was significantly lower in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were randomised to candesartan cilexetil (with or without felodipine) than among those who received hydrochlorothiazide (with or without atenolol). Although candesartan cilexetil was dominant over hydrochlorothiazide, the ALPINE cost-effectiveness analysis relied on a small number of clinical events and did not evaluate the incremental cost of candesartan cilexetil per life-year or QALY gained. In conclusion, despite some inherent limitations, economic analyses incorporating CHARM data and conducted primarily in Europe have shown that candesartan cilexetil appears to be cost effective when added to standard CHF treatment in patients with CHF and compromised LV systolic function. The use of candesartan cilexetil as part of antihypertensive therapy in elderly patients with elevated blood pressure was also deemed to be cost effective in a Swedish analysis, primarily resulting from a reduced risk of nonfatal stroke (as shown in the SCOPE study); however, the generalisability of results to other contexts has not been established. Cost-effectiveness analyses comparing candesartan cilexetil with ACE inhibitors or other angiotensin receptor blockers in CHF or hypertension are lacking, and results reported for candesartan cilexetil in a Swedish economic analysis of ALPINE data focusing on outcomes for diabetes require confirmation and extension.

[Clinical and health economic implications of early treatment with irbesartan of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and nephropathy]. / Klinische und gesundheitsökonomische Auswirkungen einer frühen Irbesartan-Therapie bei Typ-2-Diabetes, Hypertonie und Nierenerkrankung.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It was the aim of this study to project the long-term clinical and cost outcomes of irbesartan treatment, based on data from the irbesartan in Reduction of Microalbuminuria-2 (IRMA-2) study and the irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT), in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and renal disease in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model adapted to the German setting simulated progression of renal disease and associated changes in mortality in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. Early irbesartan 300 mg daily (initiated at microalbuminuria) and late irbesartan (initiated at overt nephropathy) were compared to a control scheme of antihypertensive standard medications with comparable blood pressure control, initiated at microalbuminuria. Cumulative incidence of ESRD, time to onset of ESRD, life expectancy (LE), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs were projected over 25 years for 1,000 simulated patients, from a third party payer perspective. Clinical and cost outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. RESULTS: When compared to standard blood pressure control, both early and late treatment with irbesartan were projected to reduce the cumulative incidence of ESRD fromm23.80.3% to 9.10.6% and 19.83%, increase discounted LE by 0.670.04 and 0.030.00 years, and improve QALY by 0.750.04 and 0.070.01 years per treated patient, respectively. Early irbesartan treatment was associated with a cost savings of i 12,658825 per patient while late irbesartan treatment was associated with a cost savings of i 4,116575 per patient compared to control over the 25-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Early irbesartan treatment was projected to improve LE and QALY, and reduce the onset of ESRD, with cost savings, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria in Germany. Later use of irbesartan in overt nephropathy is also superior to standard care. These findings suggest that irbesartan should be started earlier and continued long-term.