The cost implication of primary prevention in the HOPE 3 trial.

AIMS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

Cost-effectiveness of the polypill versus risk assessment for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: There is an international trend towards recommending medication to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals at increasingly lower cardiovascular risk. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population approach with a polypill including a statin (simvastatin 20 mg) and three antihypertensive agents (amlodipine 2.5 mg, losartan 25 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) and periodic risk assessment with different risk thresholds. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model for lifetime predictions of CVD events, diabetes, and death in 259 146 asymptomatic UK Biobank participants aged 40-69 years. We assessed incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for polypill scenarios with the same combination of agents and doses but differing for starting age, and periodic risk assessment with 10-year CVD risk thresholds of 10% and 20%. RESULTS: Restrictive risk assessment, in which statins and antihypertensives were prescribed when risk exceeded 20%, was the optimal strategy gaining 123 QALYs (95% credible interval (CI) -173 to 387) per 10 000 individuals at an extra cost of £1.45 million (95% CI 0.89 to 1.94) as compared with current practice. Although less restrictive risk assessment and polypill scenarios prevented more CVD events and attained larger survival gains, these benefits were offset by the additional costs and disutility of daily medication use. Lowering the risk threshold for prescription of statins to 10% was economically unattractive, costing £40 000 per QALY gained. Starting the polypill from age 60 onwards became the most cost-effective scenario when annual drug prices were reduced below £240. All polypill scenarios would save costs at prices below £50. CONCLUSIONS: Periodic risk assessment using lower risk thresholds is unlikely to be cost-effective. The polypill would become cost-effective if drug prices were reduced.

Cost-effectiveness of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide or metoprolol to treat hypertension in rural community health centers in China.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to compare blood pressure (BP)-lowing effects of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine and metoprolol, and estimate the economic effect of these therapies on hypertension. METHODS: Outpatients (N = 793) 18-70 years of age with stage 2 or severe hypertension (SBP ≥ 160 mmHg and/or DBP ≥ 100 mmHg) were recruited from four randomly selected rural community health centers in Beijing and Jilin. After drug wash out, they were randomly divided into nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group or nitrendipine and metoprolol group. The costs of drug treatment for hypertension were calculated and general estimation, whereas effectiveness was measured as a reduction in SBP and DBP at the end of a 24-week study period. RESULTS: Overall, 623 patients were eligible for the study and after a 24-week follow-up, SBP and DBP were 131.2/82.2 mmHg for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group and 131.4/82.9 mmHg for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group and these were not significantly different (P = 0.7974 SBP and P = 0.1166 DBP). Comparing with nitrendipine and metoprolol, the cost of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was less, and its effectiveness was similar. The cost/effect ratio (US$/mmHg) was 1.4 for SBP and 2.8 for DBP for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group, and 1.9 and 3.8 for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group's SBP and DBP values, respectively. The incremental cost per patient for achieving target BP was 5.1. Adverse events were mild or moderate and there were no differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Treating hypertension with nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was cost-effective than nitrendipine and metoprolol, and these data will allow more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in low-income countries.

Cost-utility of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-based treatment compared with thiazide diuretic-based treatment for hypertension in elderly Australians considering diabetes as comorbidity.

The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-based treatment compared with thiazide diuretic-based treatment for hypertension in elderly Australians considering diabetes as an outcome along with cardiovascular outcomes from the Australian government's perspective.We used a cost-utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Data on cardiovascular events and new onset of diabetes were used from the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study, a randomized clinical trial comparing diuretic-based (hydrochlorothiazide) versus ACEI-based (enalapril) treatment in 6083 elderly (age ≥65 years) hypertensive patients over a median 4.1-year period. For this economic analysis, the total study population was stratified into 2 groups. Group A was restricted to participants diabetes free at baseline (n = 5642); group B was restricted to participants with preexisting diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2) at baseline (n = 441). Data on utility scores for different events were used from available published literatures; whereas, treatment and adverse event management costs were calculated from direct health care costs available from Australian government reimbursement data. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 5% per annum. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around utilities and cost data.After a treatment period of 5 years, for group A, the ICER was Australian dollars (AUD) 27,698 (&OV0556; 18,004; AUD 1-&OV0556; 0.65) per QALY gained comparing ACEI-based treatment with diuretic-based treatment (sensitive to the utility value for new-onset diabetes). In group B, ACEI-based treatment was a dominant strategy (both more effective and cost-saving). On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the ICERs per QALY gained were always below AUD 50,000 for group B; whereas for group A, the probability of being below AUD 50,000 was 85%.Although the dispensed price of diuretic-based treatment of hypertension in the elderly is lower, upon considering the potential enhanced likelihood of the development of diabetes in addition to the costs of treating cardiovascular disease, ACEI-based treatment may be a more cost-effective strategy in this population.

Impact of antihypertensive medication adherence on blood pressure control in hypertension: the COMFORT study.

BACKGROUND: It has not been fully elucidated whether antihypertensive medication adherence affects blood pressure (BP) control in hypertension cases. AIM: To investigate the association of adherence to antihypertensive drug regimens and BP control using data from the Combination Pill of Losartan Potassium and Hydrochlorothiazide for Improvement of Medication Compliance Trial (COMFORT) study. DESIGN: An observational analysis from a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 203 hypertensive subjects were randomly assigned to a daily regimen of a combination pill (losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) or two pills, an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a thiazide diuretic. Medication adherence calculated based on pill counts and BPs was evaluated at 1, 3 and 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: The subjects were divided into three groups according to their adherence, i.e. relatively low-adherence (<90%; n = 19), moderate-adherence (90-99%; n = 71) and high-adherence (100%; n = 113) groups. Clinical characteristics of the subjects including BP, sex, randomized treatments and past medical history did not differ significantly among the three groups. Achieved follow-up BPs over the 6-month treatment period, which were adjusted for age, sex, baseline BP and randomized treatment, were significantly higher in the low-adherence group (135/78 mmHg) compared with the high-adherence (130/74 mmHg; P = 0.02/0.02) and the moderate-adherence (128/74 mmHg; P = 0.003/0.02) groups. CONCLUSION: Low adherence to an antihypertensive-drug regimen was associated with poor BP control.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Real-life treatment patterns, compliance, persistence, and medication costs in patients with hypertension in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective patient data analysis was initiated to describe current treatment patterns of patients in Germany with arterial hypertension, with a special focus on compliance, persistence, and medication costs of fixed-dose and unfixed combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), amlodipine (AML) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) in Germany. METHODS: The study analyzed prescription data collected by general practitioners, using the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The database was searched for patients with the diagnosis hypertension (ICD-10 code I10) and treatment data in the period 09/2009 to 08/2010. Compliance was measured indirectly based on the medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was defined as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. Medication costs were assessed from the statutory health insurance perspective in Germany. RESULTS: In the IMS DA 406,888 observable patients in Germany were encoded with the diagnosis I10 essential hypertension. In total, 88,716 patients received prescriptions including ARBs, monotherapy (18.6%) or unfixed combinations with other anti-hypertensives (19.3%). The compliance with fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, either dual or with one other anti-hypertensive drug, was significantly better, compared to unfixed combinations (mean compliance 78.1% for fixed-dose vs 71.5% for unfixed combinations of ARB with HCT, p < 0.0001; mean compliance 79.4% vs 72.0%, p < 0.0001 if an additional anti-hypertensive medication was added). Fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, ARB with AML, dual only or prescribed with another anti-hypertensive medication resulted in a substantial increase of persistence, especially for patients on fixed-dose dual combinations (225.7 vs 163.6 days for ARB with HCT; 232.9 vs 178.4 days for ARB with AML, respectively). Fixed-dose combinations (varying from €1.38 to €2.20 per patient and day) were on average cheaper than unfixed combinations. LIMITATIONS: Persistence and compliance could be under- or over-estimated because their assessment was based on prescription information. For two thirds of 69,060 patients, data on compliance and persistence was missing. CONCLUSION: The study shows considerable variations in ARB treatment patterns among patients, with the majority of patients treated with fixed-dose or semi-fixed combination therapy. Fixed-dose combinations of ARBs with HCT and/or AML seem to result in better compliance and persistence compared to unfixed regimes of these drug classes, leading to reduction in all-cause hospitalizations, emphasizing the benefit and potential cost-savings of using fixed-dose regimes in a real-life general practice setting in Germany.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Inequalities in prescription of hydrochlorothiazide for diabetic hypertensive patients in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating differences in the suitable prescription of thiazides in hypertense patients, according to affiliation regime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an analytical cross-sectional study. The database from a previous study was used regarding two groups of hypertense patients (subsidised regime and contributory regime) who had attended out-patient consultation between 01-09-2007 and 29-02-2008. Ideal therapy was evaluated in both groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out. RESULTS: 136 patients (contributory: 41.9 %; subsidised: 58.1 %). Subsidised regime patients were older (mean=68.8±10) than those from the contributory regime (mean=64.1±11.1) (t-test, p=0.0110). Prescribing antihypertensive drugs was ideal in 49/136 of the patients (36.0 %). Ideal prescription accounted for 24/79 (30 %) of the patients in the subsidised regime and 25/57 (43.8 %) in the contributory one (OR=1.79; 95 % CI:0.88-3.64). Older people (aged ≥ 65 yo) were at risk of receiving a non-ideal prescription (OR=2.12; 95 %CI:1.02-4.38) whilst this was not so in the subsidised regime (OR=1.62; 95 % CI:0.78-3.35). CONCLUSIONS: Ideal prescription of antihypertensive drugs was low in the population being studied. There were differences regarding age ideal prescription but not concerning affiliation regime. It is suggested that a longitudinal study be carried out in the future.

Valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its use since its introduction.

INTRODUCTION: This review focuses on the role of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) drug valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of hypertension. Effective blood pressure control often is not achieved with monotherapy and, instead, requires combinations of drugs with different mechanisms of action to produce additive or synergistic effects. AREAS COVERED: FDC valsartan/HCTZ enhances not only efficacy for blood pressure control but also provides beneficial effects on target organs beyond that expected from arterial pressure reduction alone. Data describe key clinical trial experiences with the FDC, with particular attention to efficacy and tolerability. Literature searches of these various topics were conducted in January 2011. There is evidence of potential benefits with this combination associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular dysfunction and renal disease. The FDC is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and is superior to monotherapy than either drug alone. EXPERT OPINION: In addition to the benefits of each drug, valsartan/HCTZ's metabolic interactions reduce some of the negative effects of both compounds. With its increased simplicity, minimal side-effect profile and efficacy without a significant cost penalty, valsartan/HCTZ represents an excellent choice for antihypertensive therapy.

Inequalities in prescription of hydrochlorothiazide for diabetic hypertensive patients in Colombia / Desigualdades en la prescripción de hidroclorotiazida en pacientes hipertensos diabéticos en Colombia

Objective Evaluating differences in the suitable prescription of thiazides in hypertense patients, according to affiliation regime. Materials and methods This was an analytical cross-sectional study. The database from a previous study was used regarding two groups of hypertense patients (subsidised regime and contributory regime) who had attended out-patient consultation between 01-09-2007 and 29-02-2008. Ideal therapy was evaluated in both groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out. Results 136 patients (contributory: 41.9 percent; subsidised: 58.1 percent). Subsidised regime patients were older (mean=68.8±10) than those from the contributory regime (mean=64.1±11.1) (t-test, p=0.0110). Prescribing antihypertensive drugs was ideal in 49/136 of the patients (36.0 percent). Ideal prescription accounted for 24/79 (30 percent) of the patients in the subsidised regime and 25/57 (43.8 percent) in the contributory one (OR=1.79; 95 percent CI:0.88-3.64). Older people (aged ≥ 65yo) were at risk of receiving a non-ideal prescription (OR=2.12; 95 percentCI:1.02-4.38) whilst this was not so in the subsidised regime (OR=1.62; 95 percent CI:0.78-3.35). Conclusions Ideal prescription of antihypertensive drugs was low in the population being studied. There were differences regarding age ideal prescription but not concerning affiliation regime. It is suggested that a longitudinal study be carried out in the future.

Objetivo Evaluar las diferencias en la adecuada prescripción de tiazidas en pacientes hipertensos, según régimen de afiliación. Materiales y métodos Estudio de corte transversal analítico. Se utilizó la base de datos de un estudio previo, dos grupos de pacientes hipertensos: régimen subsidiado y régimen contributivo que asistieron a consulta externa entre el 01-09-2007 y el 29-02-2008. Se evaluó terapia ideal en los dos grupos. Se realizó análisis univariado y multivariado. Resultados Se estudiaron 136 pacientes (contributivo: 41,9 por ciento; subsidiado: 58,1 por ciento). Los pacientes del régimen subsidiado fueron mayores (promedio= 68,8±10) que los del contributivo (promedio=64,1±11.1) (t-test, p=0,0110). La prescripción de antihipertensivos fue ideal en 49/136 (36,0 por ciento). En el régimen subsidiado la prescripción fue ideal en 24/79 (30 por ciento) y en el contributivo en 25/57 (43,8 por ciento) (OR: 1,79 IC95 por ciento (0,88-3,64)). La edad ≥65años fue riesgo de prescripción no ideal (OR: 2.12, IC95 por ciento(1,02-4,38)), mientras que no lo fue estar en el régimen subsidiado (OR=1,62, IC95 por ciento(0,78-3,35). Conclusiones La prescripción ideal de antihipertensivos es baja. Hay diferencias en la edad, en la prescripción ideal, mas no por régimen de afiliación. Se sugiere un estudio longitudinal en el futuro.

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.

Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its use in the treatment of hypertension and for stroke risk reduction in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [Hyzaar(R)] is a fixed-dose combination of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) losartan and the thiazide diuretic HCTZ. It is indicated for the treatment of hypertension (including as initial therapy in severe hypertension) and for stroke risk reduction in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Losartan/HCTZ is an effective combination therapy, lowering blood pressure (BP) to a greater extent than losartan or HCTZ alone in patients with hypertension. Other ARB/HCTZ fixed-dose combinations generally lowered BP to a greater extent than losartan/HCTZ in patients with hypertension, although whether this translates into improvements in cardiovascular outcomes is not known. In the LIFE study, losartan-based therapy was associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than atenolol-based therapy, mainly as a result of a reduced risk of stroke; the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus was also lower with losartan-based therapy. Losartan/HCTZ is a well tolerated combination therapy. Thus, losartan/HCTZ remains an important option in the treatment of hypertension, as well as being indicated to reduce stroke risk in patients with hypertension and LVH.

Rationale and design of the Study Assessing the Effect of Cardiovascular Medications Provided as Low-cost, Evidence-based Generic Samples (SAMPLES) trial.

BACKGROUND: Highly effective generic cardiovascular medications are frequently underused, leading to greater overall drug costs and cost-related nonadherence. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess an intervention to stimulate appropriate generic cardiovascular drug use without creating administrative or financial barriers that may impede essential medication use. TRIAL DESIGN: The SAMPLES (Study Assessing the Effect of Cardiovascular Medications Provided as Low-cost, Evidence-based Generic Samples) trial is a clustered, randomized controlled trial of the effect of providing physicians with free generic samples of hydrochlorothiazide for hypertensive patients and simvastatin for patients with hyperlipidemia. We will randomize 660 primary care physicians in Pennsylvania, clustered by physician practice, to receive free samples for both conditions or to receive no samples. We will use data on filled prescriptions obtained from a state-sponsored prescription drug assistance program to perform an intention-to-treat evaluation of the impact of the intervention on physician prescribing behavior (proportion of prescriptions that are generic) and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes will include physician adherence to established guidelines and overall prescription drug costs. CONCLUSION: This trial will define the potential role of an innovative approach to stimulate clinically appropriate cost-effective prescribing. We will determine whether free generic samples can reduce overall drug costs as well as out-of-pocket costs to the patient without sacrificing efficacy and whether this approach results in improved adherence to essential cardiovascular medications. This intervention may also improve adherence to practice guidelines and improve the quality of care received. If effective, this strategy could be used broadly by private insurers or government payers aiming to stimulate more cost-effective and higher-quality care.

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.

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.

[Comparative efficacy of fixed dose combinations of enalapril with hydrochlorothiazide and captopril with hydrochlorothiazide in patients with high risk hypertension].

Clinical effectiveness and tolerability of o.d. use of fixed dose combinations of enalapril (10 mg) with hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg) (Enap H) and captopril (50 mg) with hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg) (Capozide) were compared in a randomized study on 60 patients with I-II degree high and very high risk hypertension. Study duration was 6 months, number of patients in each of parallel groups -- 30. Antihypertensive activity, ability to improve arterial elasticity and T/P parameter, cost/efficacy index of enalapril (10 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg) combination was found to be superior to those of captopril (50 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg) combination.

Oral enalapril-hydrochlorothiazide-methyldopa as first line treatment for severe hypertension in Nigerians.

A combination of low-dose oral enalapril, methyldopa and hydrochlorothiazide was evaluated in the acute treatment of severe hypertension. Blood pressure moved from an average 210/120 mmHg at the onset to an average 135/79 mmHg within 24 hours, without any significant side effects and at about half the cost of commonly used parenteral hydralazine.