Exposure to guideline-recommended drugs after a first acute myocardial infarction in older adults: does deprivation matter?

BACKGROUND: Inequities between guideline-recommended drugs (GRD) exposure and socioeconomic status might exist. The objective was to assess the association between a material and a social deprivation index and GRD exposure following a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in older adults in the province of Quebec. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Elderly ≥66 years, hospitalized for a first AMI between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011 and covered by the public drug plan were identified. Exposure to GRD (i.e. simultaneous use of 1) antiplatelet, 2) beta-blocker, 3) lipid-lowering and 4) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker drugs) was assessed 30 and 365 days following hospital discharge. Associations between deprivation index and GRD exposure were estimated with log-binomial regressions adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Exposure to GRD was 52.2% and 48.0%, 30 and 365 days after hospital discharge, respectively. No statistically significant association was observed in multivariate analysis for both time points. Thirty days post hospital discharge, adjusted prevalence ratio of non-exposure to GRD was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.02) for most materially deprived vs. least deprived and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.99-1.08) for most socially deprived vs. least deprived. Similar results were observed for 365 days. CONCLUSION: Exposure to GRD after a first urgent AMI among older adults insured by the public drug plan in the province of Quebec is relatively low. Reasons and risk groups for this low exposure should be studied to improve secondary prevention. However, results suggest equitable access to GRD, regardless of deprivation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Germany: An Application of the Efficiency Frontier.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example. METHODS: A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. RESULTS: The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is €19 300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -€14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from €1.52 to €1.67. CONCLUSION: We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective.

An Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure Patients in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In September 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial showed the heart failure drug combination sacubitril/valsartan to be superior to enalapril for patients with a reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Netherlands using the clinical data from the PARADIGM-HF trial. METHODS: To compare sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril in a cost-effectiveness study, a Markov model was developed using the effectiveness data from the PARADIGM-HF trial. A health care payer's perspective was applied in the economic evaluation. The developed model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for sacubitril/valsartan at different per diem prices. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that sacubitril/valsartan can be cost-effective at maximum daily costs of €5.50 and €14.14 considering willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20,000 and €50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model, identifying only the price of sacubitril/valsartan and the mortality within the sacubitril/valsartan group as significant drivers of the cost-effectiveness ratio. Sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY (€50,000 per QALY) in more than 80% of the replications with certainty at the price point of €3 (€10). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan can be considered a cost-effective treatment at a daily price of €5.25. Unless priced lower than enalapril (<€0.045 per day), sacubitril/valsartan is very unlikely to be cost-saving/dominant.

Cost Effectiveness of the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Sacubitril/Valsartan for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Netherlands: A Country Adaptation Analysis Under the Former and Current Dutch Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained. METHODS: We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.

Sources of regional variation in Medicare Part D drug spending.

BACKGROUND: Sources of regional variation in spending for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are poorly understood, and such variation may reflect differences in health status, use of effective treatments, or selection of branded drugs over lower-cost generics. METHODS: We analyzed 2008 Medicare data for 4.7 million beneficiaries for prescription-drug use and expenditures overall and in three drug categories: angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Differences in per capita expenditures across hospital-referral regions (HRRs) were decomposed into annual prescription volume and cost per prescription. The ratio of prescriptions filled as branded drugs to all prescriptions filled was calculated. We adjusted all measures for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-status differences. RESULTS: Mean adjusted per capita pharmaceutical spending ranged from $2,413 in the lowest to $3,008 in the highest quintile of HRRs. Most (75.9%) of that difference was attributable to the cost per prescription ($53 vs. $63). Regional differences in cost per prescription explained 87.5% of expenditure variation for ACE inhibitors and ARBs and 56.3% for statins but only 36.1% for SSRIs and SNRIs. The ratio of branded-drug to total prescriptions, which correlated highly with cost per prescription, ranged across HRRs from 0.24 to 0.45 overall and from 0.24 to 0.55 for ACE inhibitors and ARBs, 0.29 to 0.60 for statins, and 0.15 to 0.51 for SSRIs and SNRIs. CONCLUSIONS: Regional variation in Medicare Part D spending results largely from differences in the cost of drugs selected rather than prescription volume. A reduction in branded-drug use in some regions through modification of Part D plan benefits might lower costs without reducing quality of care. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).

Adherence to Metformin, Statins, and ACE/ARBs Within the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP).

BACKGROUND: Reducing patient cost-sharing and engaging patients in disease management activities have been shown to increase uptake of evidence-based care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of employer purchase of a disease-specific plan with reduced cost-sharing and disease management (the Diabetes Health Plan/DHP) on medication adherence among eligible employees and dependents. DESIGN: Employer-level "intent to treat" cohort study, including data from eligible employees and their dependents with diabetes, regardless of whether they were enrolled in the DHP. SETTING: Employers that contracted with a large national health plan administrator in 2009, 2010, and/or 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Ten employers that purchased the DHP and 191 employers that did not (controls). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimation was used to adjust for inter-group differences. INTERVENTION: The DHP includes free or low-cost medications and physician visits. Enrollment strategies and specific benefit designs are determined by the employer and vary in practice. DHP participants are notified up front that they must engage in their own health care (e.g., receiving diabetes-related screening) in order to remain enrolled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean employee adherence to metformin, statins, and ACE/ARBs at the employer level at one year post-DHP implementation, as measured by the proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Baseline adherence to the three medications was similar across DHP and control employers, ranging from 64 to 69 %. In the first year after DHP implementation, predicted employer-level adherence for metformin (+4.9 percentage points, p = 0.017), statins (+4.8, p = 0.019), and ACE/ARBs (+4.4, p = 0.02) was higher with DHP purchase. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized, observational study. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabetes Health Plan, an innovative health plan that combines reduced cost-sharing and disease management with an up-front requirement of enrollee participation in his or her own health care, is associated with a modest improvement in medication adherence at 12 months.

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.

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.

Dosage of angiotensin-II receptor blockers in heart failure patients following changes in Danish drug reimbursement policies.

PURPOSE: National reimbursement policies in Denmark were changed in November 2010 favouring a shift in angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) treatment to generic losartan for heart failure (HF) patients. We examined how changes in reimbursement policies affected the fraction of HF patients up-titrated to optimal or suboptimal ARB dosage. METHODS: A historical cohort study was performed including HF patients with at least one prescription of ARB in the months of May-Jul 2010 (baseline). Patients were considered up-titrated at doses 100, 16 or 160 mg for losartan, valsartan and candesartan, respectively. Individual-level linkage of nationwide registries of hospitalization and drug dispensing in Denmark was used to describe patterns of ARB prescriptions and estimate dosage before and after November 2010. Logistic regression models were used to assess the probability for being up-titrated in the period. RESULTS: Of 6036 individuals included (mean age 73.5 [standard deviation 11.2] years; 51% males), 3346 (55.4%) used losartan, 541 (9.0%) valsartan and 2149 (35.6%) candesartan at inclusion, respectively. 2887 (47.8%) were up-titrated at baseline (May-Jul 2010), followed by 2878 (48.2%) in the three months before the policy change (Aug-Oct 2010), and 2492 (43.7%) in the first months after the policy change (Feb-Apr 2011). Odds ratios for being up-titrated according to time period were 1.02 [0.95-1.09] in Aug-Oct 2010 (before policy change) and 0.84 [0.78-0.90] in Feb-Apr 2011 (after policy change), compared with May-Jul 2010 (reference). CONCLUSION: Probability of being up-titrated in ARB treatment was reduced 20% following changes in drug reimbursement policies.

Economic evaluations of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in type 2 diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Structured comparison of pharmacoeconomic analyses for ACEIs and ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy is still lacking. This review aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of both ACEIs and ARBs in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for the period from November 1, 1999 to Oct 31, 2011. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the articles included and extracted data. All cost-effectiveness results were converted to 2011 Euros. RESULTS: Up to October 2011, 434 articles were identified. After full-text checking and quality assessment, 30 articles were finally included in this review involving 39 study settings. All 6 ACEIs studies were literature-based evaluations which synthesized data from different sources. Other 33 studies were directed at ARBs and were designed based on specific trials. The Markov model was the most common decision analytic method used in the evaluations. From the cost-effectiveness results, 37 out of 39 studies indicated either ACEIs or ARBs were cost-saving comparing with placebo/conventional treatment, such as amlodipine. A lack of evidence was assessed for valid direct comparison of cost-effectiveness between ACEIs and ARBs. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of direct comparisons of ACEIs and ARBs in existing economic evaluations. Considering the current evidence, both ACEIs and ARBs are likely cost-saving comparing with conventional therapy, excluding such RAAS inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness of ace inhibitors versus ARBs in heart failure management.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a chronic condition that imposes a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Effective management is crucial for improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used to manage heart failure by reducing cardiac strain and preventing disease progression. Despite their common use, ACE inhibitors and ARBs differ in mechanisms, cost, and potential side effects. ACE inhibitors have long been the standard treatment, while ARBs are often prescribed to patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors, particularly due to side effects like cough. Given these differences, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is essential. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from a healthcare system perspective, considering both direct medical costs and health outcomes. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate heart failure progression in a hypothetical cohort. Data inputs included clinical trial outcomes, real-world effectiveness data, direct medical costs (medications, hospitalizations, monitoring), and utility values for quality of life. The primary outcome measures were the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of results, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on age and disease severity. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that ACE inhibitors were associated with lower overall costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life years than ARBs. Sensitivity analyses revealed that variations in key parameters, such as transition probabilities, mortality rates, and healthcare expenses, had limited impact on the overall cost-effectiveness conclusions. Subgroup analyses indicated that ACE inhibitors and ARBs exhibited similar cost-effectiveness profiles for patients aged <65 and ≥65 years. However, among patients with severe heart failure, ARBs demonstrated a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with ACE inhibitors, suggesting reduced cost-effectiveness in this subgroup. CONCLUSION: ACE inhibitors are likely a more cost-effective option for managing heart failure than ARBs, particularly from a healthcare system perspective. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring treatment decisions to individual patient factors, preferences, and clinical conditions, providing valuable insights for healthcare policy and practice, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness across patient subgroups.

Cost-Effectiveness of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Three medications are now guideline-recommended treatments for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), however, the cost-effectiveness of these agents in combination has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in individuals with HFmrEF/HFpEF. METHODS: Using a 3-state Markov model, we performed a cost-effectiveness study using simulated cohorts of 1,000 patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Treatment with 1-, 2-, and 3-drug combinations was modeled. Based on a United States health care sector perspective, outcome data was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2023 United States dollars based on a 30-year time horizon. RESULTS: Treatment with MRA, MRA+SGLT2i, and MRA+SGLT2i+ARNI therapy resulted in an increase in life years of 1.04, 1.58, and 1.80 in the HFmrEF subgroup, respectively, and 0.99, 1.54, and 1.77 in the HFpEF subgroup, respectively, compared with placebo. At a yearly cost of $18, MRA therapy resulted in ICERs of $10,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in both subgroups. The ICER for the addition of SGLT2i therapy ($4,962 per year) was $113,000 per QALY in the HFmrEF subgroup and $141,000 in the HFpEF subgroup. The addition of ARNI therapy ($5,504 per year) resulted in ICERs >$250,000 per QALY in both subgroups. If SGLT2i and ARNI were available at generic pricing the ICERs become <$10,000 per QALY in both EF subgroups. Outcomes were highly sensitive to assumed benefit in cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with heart failure, MRA was of high value, SGLT2i was of intermediate value, and ARNI was of low value in both HFmrEF and HFpEF subgroups. For patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF increased use of MRA and SGLT2i therapies should be encouraged and be accompanied with efforts to lower the cost of SGLT2i and ARNI therapies.

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.

Community care in England: reducing socioeconomic inequalities in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with increased heart failure (HF) incidence, hospitalization rates, and mortality. However, whether the delivery of survival-enhancing medical therapy is equitable remains uncertain. We examined secular trends in the uptake of key medical therapies (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, ß-blockers, spironolactone) stratified by socioeconomic circumstances in patients with HF. Secondary analyses examined trends in HF incidence, prevalence, and survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a cross-sectional observational analysis of nationally representative primary care data from England. Treatments for patients with HF in 1999 and 2007 (n=13 330) were extracted from the General Practice Research Database. Socioeconomic circumstances were defined with the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007, a weighted composite of 7 area-level deprivation domains. Treatment uptake estimates were age standardized. The incidence and prevalence of HF decreased year to year. Although clear socioeconomic gradients in both the incidence and prevalence of HF were apparent, the absolute difference between most and least deprived reduced over time. Uptake of therapies improved over time in both men and women. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker uptake increased from 46% to 64%, ß-blocker uptake from 12% to 41%, and spironolactone uptake from 3% to 20%. Modest age and sex inequalities were apparent. However, no consistent socioeconomic gradients were observed in either treatment or case fatality. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic gradients in the incidence and prevalence of HF are reducing. Treatment is generally equitable and independent of socioeconomic circumstances. Most important, no significant inequality in outcomes was apparent. Future strategies should continue to address inequalities in the underlying causes of HF and to increase overall treatment levels further.

Influence of multiple initiatives in Sweden to enhance ARB prescribing efficiency following generic losartan; findings and implications for other countries.

BACKGROUND: Encouraging the prescribing of ACEIs first line vs. angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been a health authority focus with generic ACEIs as ACEIs and ARBs have similar effectiveness and there is limited coughing with ACEIs. This includes Sweden with its multiple initiatives keeping expenditure on renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs similar between 2001 and 2007 despite appreciably increased volumes. Generic losartan became available and was reimbursed in March 2010 providing further opportunities for the authorities in Sweden to save costs with all ARBs seen as similar in managing hypertension and CHF at appropriate doses. AIMS: The main aim of this study was to assess changes in the utilisation of losartan vs. other single ARBs after generic losartan alongside accompanying demand-side measures. Additional aims were to (i) assess changes in the price of generic losartan and single ARB expenditure over time; (ii) suggest additional programmes, if needed; and (iii) analyse utilisation of ARB FDCs and compare with ACEI FDCs. METHODS: Retrospective observational study using an interrupted time series design. RESULTS: Multiple demand-side measures introduced among the 21 Counties in Sweden significantly enhanced the utilisation of generic losartan, growing from 26% to 27% of total ARBs (DDD basis) before generic losartan to 40% by August 2011. Losartan was principally generics (97% by August 2011). Expenditure/DDD for generic losartan was 10% of the pre-patent loss price in August 2011. This reduced total single ARB expenditure by 26% by the study end despite a 16% increase in utilisation. Greater utilisation of ARB FDCs than seen with ACEI FDCs. This may be due to similarities in prices between single and FDC ARBs. DISCUSSION: Multiple demand-side measures appreciably enhanced ARB prescribing efficiency, mirroring other studies. No significant increase in losartan utilisation following generics was seen in European countries where no specific measures were instigated. Losartan price reduction was in line with expectations. CONCLUSION: Multiple and intensive demand-side measures are needed to change physician prescribing habits. Authorities cannot rely on physicians transferring their activities from one class to another without interventions.

Improving drug adherence using fixed combinations caused beneficial treatment outcomes and decreased health-care costs in patients with hypertension.

We enrolled 196 patients with hypertension who were already being treated with free-drug combinations of angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) and amlodipine. The free-drug combinations of ARB and amlodipine were replaced with the same dose of the fixed-dose combinations. The average home blood pressure (BP) in all patients receiving fixed-dose combinations was significantly lower than those receiving free-drug combinations (131 ± 10/75 ± 8 vs. 136 ± 11/77 ± 9 mm Hg, P < .01) accompanied with increasing drug adherence. After lowering BP by fixed-dose combinations, the costs for medications decreased by 31% over the 3 months.

Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs. Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Successful implementation of a P&T-approved therapeutic interchange program of angiotensin II receptor blockers in a medical center in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic interchange is not a common practice in the medical society in Asia. We used clinic blood pressure readings, patients' tolerance, and cost saving as measures to evaluate the impact of a therapeutic interchange program implemented at a medical center in Taiwan. METHODS: Taipei Medical University-Wan Fang Hospital initiated a therapeutic interchange program involving angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Data were retrospectively collected for 444 outpatients who were converted from other ARBs to candesartan. Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, adverse effects associated with therapy, and drug costs was conducted before and after the program implementation. RESULTS: Patients whose treatment was converted to candesartan experienced no statistically significant differences in blood pressure, and the average number of antihypertensive agents used per patient remained unchanged. A direct cost savings of US$62,237 was estimated for the 444 patients studied. Only 3.15% of the patients developed adverse drug reactions potentially related to candesartan, and none required hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this retrospective chart review, the present ARB therapeutic interchange program was successfully developed and implemented. This is the first study to establish the positive impact of a well-run ARB therapeutic interchange program in Taiwan.

Impact of drug price adjustments on utilization of and expenditures on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: A previous study has suggested that drug price adjustments allow physicians in Taiwan to gain greater profit by prescribing generic drugs. To better understand the effect of price adjustments on physician choice, this study used renin-angiotensin drugs (including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] and angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) to examine the impact of price adjustments on utilization of and expenditures on patented and off-patent drugs with the same therapeutic indication. METHODS: Using the Taiwan's Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (2005), we identified 147,157 patients received ACEIs and/or ARBs between 1997 and 2008. The annual incident and prevalent users of ACEIs, ARBs and overall renin-angiotensin drugs were examined. Box-Tiao intervention analysis was applied to assess the impact of price adjustments on monthly utilization of and expenditures on these drugs. ACEIs were divided into patented and off-patent drugs, off-patent ACEIs were further divided into original brands and generics, and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: The number of incident renin-angiotensin drug users decreased over the study period. The number of prevalent ARB users increased and exceeded the cumulative number of first-time renin-angiotensin drug users starting on ARBs, implying that some patients switched from ACEIs to ARBs. After price adjustments, long term trend increases in utilization were observed for patented ACEIs and ARBs; a long-term trend decrease was observed for off-patent ACEIs; long-term trend change was not significant for overall renin-angiotensin drugs. Significant long-term trend increases in expenditures were observed for patented ACEIs after price adjustment in 2007 (200.9%, p = 0.0088) and in ARBs after price adjustments in 2001 (173.4%, p < 0.0001) and 2007 (146.3%, p < 0.0001). A significant long-term trend decrease in expenditures was observed for off-patent ACEIs after 2004 price adjustment (-156.9%, p < 0.0001). Expenditures on overall renin-angiotensin drugs showed long-term trend increases after price adjustments in 2001 (72.2%, p < 0.0001) and 2007 (133.4%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Price adjustments did not achieve long-term cost savings for overall renin-angiotensin drugs. Possible switching from ACEIs to ARBs within individuals is evident. Policy makers should reconsider the appropriateness of the current adjustment strategies applied to patented and off-patent drugs.

Modifying prescribing behaviour of angiotensin receptor blockers by selectively rescinding managerial prior authorization requirements for losartan.

AIMS: To evaluate whether rescinding the prior authorization (PA) requirement (managerial pre-approval) for losartan in an health maintenance organization (HMO) could reduce prescribing of the more expensive angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). METHODS: HMO physicians were notified that losartan would no longer require PA, and appropriate changes were made to the electronic prescribing computer program. The monthly distribution by drug of the number of prescriptions for ARBs dispensed for new patients was calculated before and after the policy change from data captured from electronic records. The proportion of patients (percentage and 95% confidence interval) treated with losartan who met the criteria for treatment with ARBs (hypertension or cardiac insufficiency in patients who have developed adverse effects in response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or macroproteinuria) during the first month after the PA requirement was rescinded was calculated. RESULTS: The total number of PA requests for ARBs declined by 48.6% from 961 in December 2008, the month before the policy change, to 494 the following January, rising again to 651 during January 2010. Prescription incidence changed from 121 to 255 patients treated per month (114% increase) for losartan, from 15 to 16 (6.7% increase) for candesartan, and from 89 to 71 (20.2% decrease) for valsartan. The duration of effect for decrease in ARB requests for the more expensive drugs was approximately 1 year. Only 23.3% (95% confidence interval 18.1-28.4) of patients receiving losartan met the criteria for receiving ARBs. CONCLUSIONS: Rescinding the PA requirement for this drug alone was an effective limited-duration strategy for reduction of prescription of relatively expensive drugs.