Search

Background: Hypertension treatment coverage is low in India. A stepwise simple treatment protocol is one of the strategies to improve hypertension treatment in primary care. We estimated the effectiveness of various protocol steps to achieve blood pressure (BP) control in public sector health facilities in Punjab and Maharashtra, India, where the India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) was implemented. Methods: We analyzed the records of people enrolled for hypertension treatment and follow-up under IHCI between January 2018 and December 2021 in public sector primary and secondary care facilities across 23 districts from two states. Each state followed a different treatment protocol. We calculated the proportion with controlled BP at each step of the protocol. We also estimated the mean decline in BP pre- and post-treatment. Results: Of 281,209 patients initiated on amlodipine 5 mg, 159,292 continued on protocol drugs and came for a follow-up visit during the first quarter of 2022. Of 33,450 individuals who came for the follow-up in Punjab and 125,842 in Maharashtra, 70% and 76% had controlled BP, respectively, at the first step with amlodipine 5 mg. In Punjab, at the second step with amlodipine 10 mg, the cumulative BP control increased to 75%. A similar 5% (76%–81%) increase was seen in the second step after adding telmisartan 40 mg in Maharashtra. Overall, the mean (SD) systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased by 16 mmHg from 148 (15) mmHg at the baseline in Punjab. In Maharashtra, the decline in the mean (SD) SBP was about 15 mmHg from the 144 (18) mmHg baseline. Conclusion: Simple drug- and dose-specific protocols helped achieve a high control rate among patients retained in care under program conditions. We recommend treatment protocols starting with a single low-cost drug and escalating with the same or another antihypertensive drug depending on the cost and availability.

Generally, hypertension control programs are cost-effective, including in low- and middle-income countries, but country governments and civil society are not likely to support hypertension control programs unless value is demonstrated in terms of public health benefits, budget impact, and value-for-investment for the individual country context. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) established a standard, simplified Global HEARTS approach to hypertension control, including preferred antihypertensive medicines and blood pressure measurement devices. The objective of this study is to report on health economic studies of HEARTS hypertension control package cost (especially medication costs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact and describe mathematical models designed to translate hypertension control program data into the optimal approach to hypertension care service delivery and financing, especially in lowand middle-income countries. Early results suggest that HEARTS hypertension control interventions are either cost-saving or cost-effective, that the HEARTS package is affordable at between US$ 18-44 per person treated per year, and that antihypertensive medicines could be priced low enough to reach a global standard of an average

Abstract More than half of patients with hypertension require two or more medicines to control blood pressure. Combinations of anti‐hypertensive medicines are available as Single Pill Combinations (SPCs) or Single Agent Pills (SAPs). SPCs of two or more anti‐hypertensive medicines facilitate simpler dosing schedules, decrease pill burden, increase adherence to medicine, and simplify procurement and distribution. Despite this, equivalent combinations of separate pills (SAPs) are often prescribed instead of SPCs under the assumption that SAPs are priced lower. This study compared prices of anti‐hypertensive SPCs and equivalent SAPs in the private health care sector of India. High sales volume anti‐hypertensive SPCs and SAPs were selected from 2018 private sector pharmaceutical sales data. SPCs and SAPs price information was collected from online pharmacy websites between November 2019 and January 2020. Anti‐hypertensive SPCs represent approximately 39.1% of India's private sector anti‐hypertensive drug market. Multiple manufacturers produce the same top‐selling SPCs, suggesting a viable and competitive market. A comparison of SPCs and SAPs across different manufacturers showed that the lowest prices of both SPCs and the sum of component SAPs were nearly identical across different manufacturers. An analysis of dual‐drug SPCs and SAPs by the same manufacturer showed that most manufacturers (five of six) had priced their SPCs higher than SAPs. These observations suggest that the price of SPCs could be lowered to match the combined price of the component SAPs, and manufacturing costs and market forces do not present a barrier to the implementation of anti‐hypertensive SPCs.