Cost-effectiveness of single-pill and separate-pill administration of antihypertensive triple combination therapy: a population-based microsimulation study.

BACKGROUND: Single-pill combination (SPC) of three antihypertensive drugs has been shown to improve adherence to therapy compared with free combinations, but little is known about its long-term costs and health consequences. This study aimed to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness profile of a three-drug SPC of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium-channel blocker, and a diuretic vs the corresponding two-pill administration (a two-drug SPC plus a third drug separately) from the Italian payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using multi-state semi-Markov modeling and microsimulation. Using the healthcare utilization database of the Lombardy Region (Italy), 30,172 and 65,817 patients aged ≥ 40 years who initiated SPC and two-pill combination, respectively, between 2015 and 2018 were identified. The observation period extended from the date of the first drug dispensation until death, emigration, or December 31, 2019. Disease and cost models were parametrized using the study cohort, and a lifetime microsimulation was applied to project costs and life expectancy for the compared strategies, assigning each of them to each cohort member. Costs and life-years gained were discounted by 3%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1,000 samples was performed to address parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with the two-pill combination, the SPC increased life expectancy by 0.86 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.14), with a mean cost differential of -€12 (95% CI -9,719-8,131), making it the dominant strategy (ICER = -14, 95% CI -€15,871-€7,113). The cost reduction associated with the SPC was primarily driven by savings in hospitalization costs, amounting to €1,850 (95% CI 17-7,813) and €2,027 (95% CI 19-8,603) for patients treated with the SPC and two-pill combination, respectively. Conversely, drug costs were higher for the SPC (€3,848, 95% CI 574-10,640 vs. €3,710, 95% CI 263-11,955). The cost-effectiveness profile did not significantly change according to age, sex, and clinical status. CONCLUSIONS: The SPC was projected to be cost-effective compared with the two-pill combination at almost all reasonable willingness-to-pay thresholds. As it is currently prescribed to only a few patients, the widespread use of this strategy could result in benefits for both patients and the healthcare system.

Nicardipine or Nitroprusside for Postoperative Blood Pressure Control in Infants After Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease: Single-Center Retrospective Noninferiority and Cost Analysis, 2016-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Postoperative hypertension frequently occurs after surgery for congenital heart disease. Given safety concerns when using calcium channel blockers in infants along with the cost and side-effect profile of nitroprusside, we retrospectively assessed our experience of using nicardipine and nitroprusside for postoperative blood pressure control in infants who underwent surgery for congenital heart disease. We also investigated the cost difference between the medications. DESIGN: This study was a single-center retrospective, pre-post chart review of patients who had surgery for congenital heart disease between 2016 and 2020. The primary aim was a noninferiority comparison of achievement of blood pressure goal at 1-hour post-initiation of an antihypertensive agent. Secondary comparisons included achievement of blood pressure goal at 2 hours after medication initiation, Vasoactive-Inotropic Score (VIS), and blood transfusion, crystalloid volume, and calcium needs. SETTING: Academic quaternary-care center. PATIENTS: Infants under 1 year old who required treatment for hypertension with nitroprusside ( n = 71) or nicardipine ( n = 52) within 24 hours of surgery for congenital heart disease. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We failed to identify any difference in proportion of patients that achieved blood pressure control at 1-hour after medication initiation (nitroprusside 52% vs. nicardipine 54%; p = 0.86), with nicardipine noninferior to nitroprusside within a 15% margin. Of patients who did not achieve control at 1-hour post-medication initiation, receiving nicardipine was associated with blood pressure control at 2 hours post-medication initiation (79% vs. 38%; p = 0.003). We also failed to identify an association between antihypertensive types and mean VIS scores, blood transfusion volumes, crystalloid volumes, and quantities of calcium administered. Index cost of using nitroprusside was 16 times higher than using nicardipine, primarily due to difference in wholesale cost. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience of achieving blood pressure control in infants after surgery for congenital heart disease (2016-2020), antihypertensive treatment with nicardipine was noninferior to nitroprusside. Furthermore, nicardipine use was significantly less expensive than nitroprusside. Our contemporary practice is therefore to use nicardipine in preference to nitroprusside.

Effectiveness of Levoamlodipine Maleate for Hypertension Compared with Amlodipine Besylate: a Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Antihypertensive treatment is the most important method to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. However, there is scant evidence of the benefits of levoamlodipine maleate for antihypertensive treatment using a head-to-head comparison in the real-world. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of levoamlodipine maleate used to treat outpatients with primary hypertension compared with amlodipine besylate in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study carried out at 110 centers across China in outpatients with primary hypertension treated with levoamlodipine maleate or amlodipine besylate, with 24 months of follow-up. The primary outcomes used for evaluating the effectiveness were composite major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), adverse reactions, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Among the included 10,031 patients, there were 482 MACCE, 223 (4.4%) in the levoamlodipine maleate group (n = 5018) and 259 (5.2%) in the amlodipine besylate group (n = 5013) (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.75-1.08, P = 0.252). The levoamlodipine maleate group had lower overall incidences of any adverse reactions (6.0% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001), lower extremity edema (1.1% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001) and headache (0.7% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.045). There was a nearly 100% chance of the levoamlodipine maleate being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of 150,000 Yuan per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, resulting in more QALYs (incremental QALYs: 0.00392) and cost savings (saving 2725 Yuan or 28.8% reduction in overall costs) per patient. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, levoamlodipine maleate could reduce cost by 29% with a similar MACCE incidence rate and lower occurrence of adverse reactions (especially edema and headache) compared with amlodipine besylate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01844570 registered at May 1, 2013.

Effectiveness of treatment of newly diagnosed hypertension in family medicine practices in South Croatia.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled blood pressure remains an urgent issue in clinical practice worldwide. This study aimed to compare the characteristics and effectiveness of hypertension control in family medicine pratice in the first treatment year, in relation to the geographical position, socio-economic standard, and access to medical services and public pharmacies in urban, rural and island environments (city of Split vs. Dalmatian Hinterland vs. islands in Southern Croatia). METHODS: A historical cohort study included 213 patients diagnosed from 2008 to 2014 with essential arterial hypertension (AH) and without related complications or diabetes mellitus. Each patient was followed up for 365 days from the visit when the diagnosis of hypertension was ascertained. Normotension was defined as arterial pressure < 140/90 mmHg. The annual cost of drugs prescribed for treating newly diagnosed hypertensive patient and the total price for defined daily dose per patient were also evaluated. RESULTS: More than half patients achieved normotension within a year from the initial diagnosis in all family medicine practices (57.3%), without significant differences among the three geographic regions (P = 0.981). Higher initial systolic blood pressure was a positive predictive prognostic factor on achieveing normotension (odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98). ACE inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive agents in monotherapy (35.1%), as well as considering overall prescriptions (25.2%). Calcium channel blockers were the most commonly prescribed initial BP-lowering single agents in urban areas (28.6%), whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more common in rural (28.0%) and island areas (22.7%) (P = 0.037). The median annual antihypertensive drug cost was 169.4 (95% CI 151.5-201.8) Croatian kunas and was similar across the study sites. CONCLUSION: Multiple antihypertensive drugs, prescribed in accordance with the guidelines, lead to similar pharmacological effects. Primary care physicians seem to be able to overcome potential interfering socio-economic factors and successfully achieve normotension in newly diagnosed patients with uncomplicated AH after 1 year of treatment.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Ranolazine Versus Conventional Antianginals Users Among Veterans With Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris.

Real-world outcomes in patients with chronic stable angina treated with ranolazine and other antianginal medications as second- or third-line therapy are limited. In a historical cohort study of veterans with chronic stable angina, we compared time with coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalizations, and 1-year healthcare costs between new-users of ranolazine versus conventional antianginals (i.e., calcium channel blockers, ß blockers, or long-acting nitrates) as second- or third-line. Weighted regression models calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HR) at up to 8-year follow-up, and adjusted incremental costs in the first year. Weighted groups comprised 4,699 ranolazine users and 31,815 conventional antianginal users. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) occurred more often in ranolazine users compared with conventional antianginal users (HR 1.16; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.08 to 1.25, p <0.001), and coronary artery bypass grafting occurred less often (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, p <0.046). All-cause and atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalizations were less common with ranolazine users compared with conventional users (all-cause: HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p <0.010; AF:HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p <0.001), and acute coronary syndrome was more common (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27, p <0.042). Adjusted 1-year costs were $24,517 in ranolazine users and $24,798 in conventional users (difference, $-280; 95% CI $-1,742 to $1,181, p = 0.71). In conclusion, ranolazine users had lower rates of coronary artery bypass grafting and all-cause and AF hospitalizations, but higher rates of percutaneous coronary intervention and hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndrome compared with conventional antianginal users. Healthcare costs were similar between ranolazine and conventional antianginal users.

Sodium Nitroprusside as a Hyperinflation Drug and Therapeutic Alternatives.

Sodium nitroprusside (SNP) is a generically available and rapid-acting intravenous (IV) vasodilator that has been used clinically for decades. Prior to 2013, the cost of SNP was relatively low, and SNP was an affordable option for the treatment of acute hypertension. However, from 2013 to 2017, average wholesale prices for SNP rose to as high as US$900 per vial, earning the drug its status as a "hyperinflation drug." Hyperinflation drugs pose a significant challenge for pharmacy departments. A multidisciplinary effort involving stakeholders from many backgrounds, including pharmacists, physicians, and nurses, is key to developing an effective cost containment strategy. A therapeutic interchange, wherein a drug with similar efficacy is substituted for another, is often an appropriate strategy to address rising drug costs. Fortunately, alternative drugs with a solid evidence base exist for the management of acute hypertension. The dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, clevidipine and nicardipine, are IV titratable antihypertensive agents with favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Various studies indicate that clevidipine and nicardipine are effective alternatives to SNP for indications including hypertensive crisis and postoperative hypertension. Some hospitals have reported significant cost savings without adverse outcomes by substituting clevidipine or nicardipine for SNP. This article is intended to serve as a review of the evidence for clevidipine and nicardipine as potential substitutes for SNP and to provide strategies to successfully implement this therapeutic interchange.

Whose patient is it? The path to multidisciplinary management of achalasia.

In the past decade, the introduction of high-resolution manometry and the classification of achalasia into subtypes has made possible to accurately diagnose the disease and predict the response to treatment for its different subtypes. However, even to date, in an era of exponential medical progress and increased insight in disease mechanisms, treatment of patients with achalasia is still rather simplistic and mostly confined to mechanical disruption of the lower esophageal sphincter by different means. In addition, there is partial consensus on what is the best form of available treatments for patients with achalasia. Herein, we provide a comprehensive outlook to a general approach to the patient with suspected achalasia by: 1) defining the modern evaluation process; 2) describing the diagnostic value of high-resolution manometry and the Chicago Classification in predicting treatment outcomes and 3) discussing the available treatment options, considering the patient conditions, alternatives available to both the surgeon and the gastroenterologist, and the burden to the health care system. It is our hope that such discussion will contribute to value-based management of achalasia through promoting a leaner clinical flow of patients at all points of care.

Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Antihypertensive Medicines: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Hypertension affects one third of the U.S. adult population. Although cost-effectiveness analyses of antihypertensive medicines have been published, a comprehensive systematic review across medicine classes is not available. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Health Technology Assessment were searched to identify original cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1990 through August 2016. Results were summarized by medicine class: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), thiazide-type diuretics, ß-blockers, and others. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were adjusted to 2015 U.S. dollars. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Among 76 studies reviewed, 14 compared medicines with no treatment, 16 compared medicines with conventional therapy, 29 compared between medicine classes, 13 compared within medicine class, and 11 compared combination therapies. All antihypertensives were cost effective compared with no treatment (ICER/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]=dominant-$19,945). ARBs were more cost effective than CCBs (ICER/QALY=dominant-$13,016) in nine comparisons, whereas CCBs were more cost effective than ARBs (ICER/QALY=dominant) in two comparisons. ARBs were more cost effective than ACEIs (ICER/QALY=dominant-$34,244) and ß-blockers (ICER/QALY=$1,498-$18,137) in all eight comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: All antihypertensives were cost effective compared with no treatment. ARBs appeared to be more cost effective than CCBs, ACEIs, and ß-blockers. However, these latter findings should be interpreted with caution because these findings are not robust due to the substantial variability across the studies, including study settings and analytic models, changes in the cost of generic medicines, and publication bias.

Patterns of prescription antihypertensive drug utilization and adherence to treatment guidelines in the city of Novi Sad.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Hypertension is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and more than a half of all health insurance expenditures for reimbursed medicines are allocated to antihypertensive drugs in Serbia. The aim of this study was to identify the antihypertensive drug utilization patterns among hypertensive outpatients in the city of Novi Sad, Serbia, determine the adherence to clinical guidelines and address the economic aspects of current prescribing practices. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted in Novi Sad over a period of six months. The data on the number of packages, size their, and retail price of antihypertensives issued on prescription in outpatients with the diagnosis of essential arterial hypertension was collected from all state-owned pharmacies in Novi Sad. Drug consumption was analyzed using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)/ defined daily dose (DDD) methodology. RESULTS: Total consumption of antihypertensives issued on prescription over a 6-month period in the city of Novi sad, Serbia was 283.48 DDD per 1,000 inhabitans per day (DID). Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) were most commonly prescribed drugs, and were used 3 times more often than calcium channel blockers and 5 times more than beta-blockers. The consumption of diuretics and angiotensin receptor antagonists was low within all the groups of outpatients. Both national and international guidelines state superiority and effectiveness of diuretics in treatment of hypertension in the elderly, but their consumption was unreasonable low despite the fact that over 70% of all antihypertensive drugs in the city of Novi Sad were dispensed in people aged > 60. The use of more expensive ACEi was observed despite the guidelines deeming all the drugs of this class equally effective in treatment of hypertension. CONCLUSION: Large differences in utilization of different groups of antihypertensive agents were noted in this study. Underutilization of valuable, efficacious, and cost-effective thiazide diuretics and overuse of expensive ACE inhibitors is unjustifiable. There is a potential for large savings with switching to low-price ACEi, modeling the practice of Scandinavian countries.

Cost-effectiveness of medical primary prevention strategies to reduce absolute risk of cardiovascular disease in Tanzania: a Markov modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a growing cause of mortality and morbidity in Tanzania, but contextualized evidence on cost-effective medical strategies to prevent it is scarce. We aim to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of medical interventions for primary prevention of CVD using the World Health Organization's (WHO) absolute risk approach for four risk levels. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective using two Markov decision models: CVD risk without diabetes and CVD risk with diabetes. Primary provider and patient costs were estimated using the ingredients approach and step-down methodologies. Epidemiological data and efficacy inputs were derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We used disability- adjusted life years (DALYs) averted as the outcome measure. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: For CVD low-risk patients without diabetes, medical management is not cost-effective unless willingness to pay (WTP) is higher than US$1327 per DALY averted. For moderate-risk patients, WTP must exceed US$164 per DALY before a combination of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and diuretic (Diu) becomes cost-effective, while for high-risk and very high-risk patients the thresholds are US$349 (ACEI, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and Diu) and US$498 per DALY (ACEI, CCB, Diu and Aspirin (ASA)) respectively. For patients with CVD risk with diabetes, a combination of sulfonylureas (Sulf), ACEI and CCB for low and moderate risk (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) US$608 and US$115 per DALY respectively), is the most cost-effective, while adding biguanide (Big) to this combination yielded the most favourable ICERs of US$309 and US$350 per DALY for high and very high risk respectively. For the latter, ASA is also part of the combination. CONCLUSIONS: Medical preventive cardiology is very cost-effective for all risk levels except low CVD risk. Budget impact analyses and distributional concerns should be considered further to assess governments' ability and to whom these benefits will accrue.

Wealth-related Inequality in Utilization of Antihypertensive Medicines in Iran: an Ecological Study on Population Level Data.

BACKGROUND: We aim to evaluate the trend of national and sub-national (provincial) utilization pattern of antihypertensive medicines in the Iranian population in the past decade and evaluate whether there is any wealth-related inequality in utilization of these medicines among different provinces. METHOD: Either fixed effect or random effect linear panel data model was used to check the effect of wealth index on utilization of all antihypertensive medicines and each class, adjusting for other covariates including years of schooling, urbanization, mean age, and food type of provinces. The principal component analysis was applied to make summery measures for covariates using available national datasets. RESULTS: The effect of wealth category on the utilization of all antihypertensive medicines among Iranian provinces was positive and significant (0.84; 95% CI: 0.09, 1.59). Accordingly as subgroup analysis, in BBs and CCBs classes, the effects of wealth category on utilization of medicines were positive and significant (0.36; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.60 and 0.27; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.40, respectively). However in ACEIs and Diuretics classes, the effects of wealth category were positive but not significant. In ARBs class, the effect of wealth on utilization was negative and not significant (-0.04; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.18). CONCLUSION: According to this study, an inequality could be observed in Iran related to wealth category in utilization of total antihypertensive medicines between provinces.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults: a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial).

BACKGROUND: Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation. SETTING: Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location. CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Income differences in the type of antihypertensive medicines used in ambulatory settings in Finland: a register-based study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to explore income differences in the prevalence of moderate-to-severe hypertension, and among patients, in the use and costs of medicines. METHODS: Personal income was used to classify ≥25-year-old population in quintiles (QI-QV). Patients (N = 497,560) with moderate-to-severe hypertension were identified using special refund entitlements. Medicine use and costs derived from prescription register. Direct standardisation and multivariate regression were used to adjust for demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: Low income was associated with higher prevalence of moderate-to-severe hypertension (overall 13%). After adjusting for age, gender, residence, diabetes and coronary heart disease, nearly all patients purchased at least one antihypertensive medicine (93 vs. 96% in QI and QV). Differences in the purchased quantities were small (mean estimates 1028 vs. 1054 defined daily doses (DDDs)/patient/year in QIV and QI). High-income patients were more likely to use angiotensin receptor blockers (37 vs. 54% in QI and QV). Low-income patients were more likely to use beta-blockers (59 vs. 49%, respectively) and ACE inhibitors (35 vs. 28%, respectively). Higher income was associated with higher annual out-of-pocket costs (mean €66 vs. €71 in QI and QV) and reimbursements (€144 vs. €163, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of more expensive medicines contributed to higher costs among patients with higher incomes.

Economic evaluation of single-pill combination of indapamide and amlodipine in the treatment of arterial hypertension in the Polish setting.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension is a common disorder that affects around 9 million adults in Poland. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) for the treatment of arterial hypertension have significant advantages over the free combinations, resulting in lower risk of cardiovascular events and lower consumption of medical resources. The current ESC/ESH 2013 guidelines for the first time recommend treatment with a combination of thiazide-like diuretic with calcium channel blocker. Currently, no such combination is reimbursed from public funds in Poland. AIM: To assess the economic value of treatment with SPC of indapamide and amlodipine (Tertens-AM®) for hypertensive patients compared with free combination therapy (FC), in the Polish setting. METHODS: As there are currently no published data directly estimating the additional effect of using indapamide + amlo-dipine SPC vs. FC, two extreme approaches are presented: with difference in effectiveness due to improved adherence to the treatment estimated from published studies on other molecules used in hypertension such as SPCs and FCs - the base-case approach (1); and assuming no difference of effectiveness or adherence between SPC and FC of indapamide and amlodipine - the conservative approach (2). Modelling was carried out based on the Markov process in lifetime horizon. In the base-case approach, with the difference in effectiveness between SPC and FC, it was assumed that the differences in compliance translate into the differences in systolic blood pressure. Patients' characteristics were correlated with the risk of events associated with cardiovascular disease, based on the prediction algorithms from the Framingham Heart Study. Costs were considered from a National Health Fund (NHF) perspective and NHF and patient's perspective, and therefore direct medical costs were only included. RESULTS: The treatment with SPC of indapamide and amlodipine in place of FC resulted in 7.6 additional days of life in full health and longer overall patient survival by 2.9 days. The replacement of FC with SPC would result in national savings from both NHF perspective and NHF and patient's perspective, irrespective of the assumption of the difference in adherence between SPC and FC. The savings would amount to 1.602-3.954 million PLN and 16.498-19.186 million PLN from NHF perspective and NHF and patient's perspective, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment with SPC of indapamide and amlodipine for hypertensive patients was found to be dominant over FC or at least less expensive than treatment with FC when the difference in effectiveness was neglected. The replacement of FC with SPC would result in savings from both NHF perspective and NHF and patient's perspective.

Blood pressure control and satisfaction of hypertensive patients following a switch to combined drugs of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in clinical practice of nephrology.

BACKGROUND: Combination drugs containing an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker have been widely commercialized in recent years, and their advantages, such as improvements in adherence, and reductions in medication costs, have been greatly emphasized. However, the actual situations and the impact of switching to combination drugs in clinical practice of nephrology are not fully understood. METHODS: This study was conducted in outpatients of nephrology who received antihypertensive medicines, and who switched to combination drugs. Changes in the potency of the antihypertensive drugs, and blood pressure were examined retrospectively before and after changing treatments. In addition, the study also involved patients' questionnaire, which examined changes in blood pressure at home, the presence or absence of missed doses, the impact on medication-related expenses, and the level of patients' satisfaction with regard to combination drugs. RESULTS: Survey results from 90 participants revealed that changing to combination drugs resulted in a reduction of missed doses, a decrease in blood pressure measured in an outpatient setting, and a reduction in medication-related expenses in total patients, non-chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, and CKD patients. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that switching to combination antihypertensive drugs resulted in an improvement in adherence and a reduction in medication-related expenses, and revealed that patient satisfaction was high. Combination drugs for hypertensive patients may be beneficial in both medical and economical viewpoints.

Clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in hypertensive patients treated with a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/valsartan.

This retrospective claims database analysis compared two strategies of hypertension treatment in outpatient, emergency, and inpatient departments: a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine/valsartan vs free combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (ARB+CCB group). After a mean follow-up of 15.2 months, the FDC group had significantly lower total healthcare costs (US $1844 vs US $2158; P<.001) and hospitalization rates (14.57% vs 18.43%; P<.001), a higher proportion of days covered (80.35% vs 72.57%; P<.001), and better persistence (266 vs 225 days; P<.001) compared with the ARB+CCB group. The FDC group also had a better major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.94; P=.003) and decreased rates of heart failure (2.12% vs 3.26%; P<.001), malignant dysrhythmia (0.18% vs 0.42%; P=.021), and percutaneous coronary intervention (0.76% vs 1.26%; P=.015). Compared with free combinations of ARB+CCB, an FDC of amlodipine/valsartan improved MACE-free survival and medication compliance and decreased total healthcare costs and hospitalization rates in hypertensive patients.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an α-blocker (tamsulosin): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is common, with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2% to 3%. Ureteric stones can cause severe pain and have a significant impact on quality of life, accounting for over 15,000 hospital admissions in England annually. Uncomplicated cases of smaller stones in the lower ureter are traditionally treated expectantly. Those who fail standard care or develop complications undergo active treatment, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy with stone retrieval. Such interventions are expensive, require urological expertise and carry a risk of complications.Growing understanding of ureteric function and pathophysiology has led to the hypothesis that drugs causing relaxation of ureteric smooth muscle, such as the selective α-blocker tamsulosin and the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine, can enhance the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones. The use of drugs in augmenting stone passage, reducing the morbidity and costs associated with ureteric stone disease, is promising. However, the majority of clinical trials conducted to date have been small, poor to moderate quality and lacking in comprehensive economic evaluation.This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tamsulosin and nifedipine in the management of symptomatic urinary stones. METHODS/DESIGN: The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating two medical expulsive therapy strategies (nifedipine or tamsulosin) versus placebo.Patients aged 18 to 65 with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder will be randomized to receive nifedipine, tamsulosin or placebo (400 participants per arm) for a maximum of 28 days. The primary clinical outcome is spontaneous passage of ureteric stones at 4 weeks (defined as no further intervention required to facilitate stone passage). The primary economic outcome is a reduction in the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years, determined at 12 weeks. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomized (intention to treat). The trial has 90% power with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 10% increase in primary outcome between the tamsulosin and nifedipine treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69423238; EudraCT number: 2010-019469-26.

[Generic drugs and the consumption trends of antihypertensives in Morocco]. / Les médicaments génériques et l'évolution de la consommation des antihypertenseurs au Maroc.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the evolution of consumption of antihypertensive drugs generic among 1991-2010, to assess the impacts after the institution of Mandatory Health Insurance and the marketing of generic drugs. METHODS: We used sales data from the Moroccan subsidiary of IMS Health Intercontinental Marketing Service. RESULTS: Consumption of generic antihypertensive drugs increased from 0.08 to 10.65 DDD/1 000 inhabitants/day between 1991 and 2010. In 2010, generic of the calcium channel blockers (CCBs) represented 4.08 DDD/1 000 inhabitants/day (82.09%), followed by angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) by 2.40 DDD/1 000 inhabitants/day (48.29%). The generics market of CCBs is the most dominant and represented in 2010, 79.21% in volume and 62.58% in value. CONCLUSION: In developing countries like Morocco, the generic drug is a key element for access to treatment especially for the poor population.