Search

Importance: For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has become increasingly preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). However, sacubitril-valsartan is much more expensive than generic ACE-I/ARBs. It is unknown whether the high cost of sacubitril-valsartan is offset by lower spending on hospitalizations and other treatments., Objective: To compare total and out-of-pocket health care spending among Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE-I/ARBs for HFrEF., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study using data from Medicare fee-for-service claims with propensity score matching of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to December 2023., Exposure: Initiation of sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Patients were matched by propensity score based on 104 covariates, including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, baseline annual spending, and baseline use of health care services., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean total and out-of-pocket health care expenditures during the 365 days after initiating sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Censoring for incomplete follow-up was addressed using Kaplan-Meier probability weighting. Cost differences, cost ratios, and 95% CIs were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrapping method with 500 samples drawn with replacement., Results: Among 13 755 matched pairs of Medicare patients with HFrEF (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.5] years; 5138 [39%] 80 years or older; 9949 females [36%] and 17 561 males [64%]), mean annual total health care spending per person was similar for sacubitril-valsartan initiators and ACE-I/ARB initiators (difference, $701; 95% CI, -$132 to $1593). Sacubitril-valsartan initiators had higher prescription drug costs (difference, $1911; 95% CI, $1704 to $2113), lower inpatient costs (difference, -$790; 95% CI, -$1468 to -$72), lower outpatient costs (difference, -$330; 95% CI, -$664 to -$11), and higher annual out-of-pocket spending (difference, $109; 95% CI, $13 to $208)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan to treat HFrEF had similar total health care spending as those initiating ACE-I/ARBs; higher prescription drug spending was offset by lower inpatient and outpatient spending. However, sacubitril-valsartan use was associated with higher patient out-of-pocket costs, which may exacerbate health disparities and limit access and affordability.

Objectives: Although financial interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies could be potential conflicts of interest, in certain instances, industry promotion targeted at physicians may facilitate the early adoption of effective, novel care for patients such as sacubitril/valsartan in the USA. This study aims to evaluate associations between industry-sponsored meal payments to physicians and their prescribing patterns for sacubitril/valsartan in the USA., Methods: Using the publicly accessible Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Part D database and the Open Payments Database, this study assessed associations between industry-sponsored meal payments to physician prescribers and total amounts of Medicare claims and spending for sacubitril/valsartan between 2015 and 2021., Results: Among 220 147 eligible physician prescribers, 60 568 (27.5%) received at least one meal payment related to sacubitril/valsartan from the manufacturer, totaling US$13.9 million. The receipt of meal payments was significantly associated with a higher proportion of sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions to all sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescriptions, with an OR of 2.04 (95% CI: 1.98 to 2.10, p<0.001). Moreover, a 10% increase in the annual number of meal payments was associated with a 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5% to 2.6%, p<0.001) increase in the annual number of Medicare claims and a 7.3% (95% CI: 7.1% to 7.5%, p<0.001) increase in annual Medicare spending per physician., Conclusions: Given the underprescription of sacubitril/valsartan in the USA, the positive associations between meal payments and physicians' prescribing patterns suggest that industry-sponsored meals may contribute to the early adoption of this cost-effective, novel heart failure drug among US Medicare beneficiaries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: Despite sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) being cost-effective evidenced-based therapies for the management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF), research shows that less than 30% of patients with HFrEF are prescribed these agents., Objective: This study aimed to understand clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to prescribing ARNi and SGLT2i in patients with HFrEF., Methods: We conducted virtual and in-person semi-structured interviews in a large integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States. Twenty cardiology clinicians managing patients with HFrEF were recruited using purposeful sampling to target providers across professions and practice sites. The interview guide was developed based on a literature review and insights from a practicing cardiologist. It inquired about perceived prescribing behaviors, focusing on factors affecting the use of ARNi and SGLT2i. We identified key themes using rapid qualitative analysis., Results: Twenty clinicians were interviewed: 13 physicians, 5 advanced practitioners, and 2 clinic-based pharmacists. Eighteen interviews were analyzed; we excluded 2 as the clinicians interviewed did not meet the inclusion criteria. Three major themes were identified: 1) clinician-reported prescribing patterns don't always align with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the use of SGLT2i and ARNi due to clinical inertia, lack of familiarity, knowledge, and comfort with use, and concerns over polypharmacy or adverse events, 2) clinician-perceived and actual out-of-pocket cost reduced prescribing of ARNi or SGLT2i to patients, exacerbated by a lack of visibility into patients' prescription coverage, denials of coverage by insurance, and navigating prior authorization related workflows, and 3) incorporation of a clinic-based pharmacist increased the prescribing of these medications., Conclusion: Increasing cost transparency, implementing interventions to overcome clinical inertia and cost hurdles, and increasing clinic-based pharmacist support may improve evidenced-based prescribing in patients with HFrEF, especially for comparatively novel classes such as ARNi and SGLT2i., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Voyce reports research funding from AstraZeneca and Amarin Corp. Dr. Wright, Dr. Voyce, and Dr. Pradhan report research support from the Geisinger Health Plan Quality Grant for the "GeisingeR Education & Alert Trial for Heart Failure Care" study. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Fonarow has consulted for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or has had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Aims: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is treatable but guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) may not be affordable or accessible to people living with the disease., Methods and Results: In this cross-sectional survey, we investigated the price, affordability, and accessibility of four pivotal classes of HFrEF GDMT: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI); beta-blockers; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA); and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). We sampled online or community pharmacies in 10 countries across a range of World Bank income groups, assessing mean 30 day retail prescription prices, affordability relative to gross national income per capita per month, and accessibility. We reported median price ratios relative to the International Reference Standard. We performed a literature review to evaluate accessibility to GDMT classes through publicly funded drug programmes in each country. HFrEF GDMT prices, both absolute and relative to the international reference, were highest in the United States and lowest in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The most expensive drug was the ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan, with a mean (standard deviation, SD) 30 day price ranging from $11.06 (0.81) in Pakistan to $611.50 (3.54) in United States. The least expensive drug was the MRA, spironolactone, with a mean (SD) 30 day price ranging from $0.18 (0.00) in Pakistan to $12.32 (0.00) in England. Affordability (SD) of quadruple therapy-ARNI, beta-blockers, MRA, and SGLT2i-was best in high-income and worst in low-income countries, ranging from 1.49 (0.00)% of gross national income per capita per month in England to 232.47 (31.47)% in Uganda. Publicly funded drug programmes offset costs for eligible patients, but ARNI and SGLT2i were inaccessible through these programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Price, affordability, and access were substantially improved in all countries by substituting ARNI for ACEi/ARB., Conclusions: There was marked variation between countries in the retail price of HFrEF GDMT. Despite higher prices in high-income countries, GDMT was more accessible and affordable than in low- and middle-income countries. Publicly funded drug programmes in lower income countries increased affordability but limited access to newer HFrEF GDMT classes. Pharmaco-disparities must be addressed to improve HFrEF outcomes globally., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Importance: Sacubitril-valsartan use reduces mortality and hospitalizations compared with enalapril among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, the cost-effectiveness of these treatments when initiated during hospitalization for HF is unknown., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril compared with no initiation or posthospitalization initiation of sacubitril-valsartan among stabilized patients with HFrEF., Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included data on US patients with HFrEF who were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan treatment from December 8, 2009, to May 15, 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model with all-cause mortality, HF, and non-HF hospitalization probabilities was used. Quality of life was estimated using Euro-QoL EQ-5D scores. Hospitalization, long-term care, and medication costs for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril were modeled with a discount rate of 3%. The base-case analysis included a lifetime horizon from a health care and societal perspective., Results: Modeled patients were a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (11.5) years. Inpatient treatment with sacubitril-valsartan ($5628 per year) was associated with 62 fewer HF-related admissions per 1000 patients compared with outpatient initiation or 116 fewer HF-related admissions compared with continuation of enalapril treatment. From a health care system perspective, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization saved $452 per year compared with continuing enalapril and $811 per year compared with initiation at 2 months after hospitalization and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $21 532 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with continued enalapril treatment over a lifetime. From a societal perspective, inpatient initiation was estimated to save $460 per year per patient compared with no initiation of sacubitril-valsartan and $813 per year per patient compared with initiation after hospitalization. In a budget analysis, inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to save up to $449 per person for 1 year or $2550 per person over 5 years compared with continuation of enalapril., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that, for patients with HFrEF, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization may be associated with reduced hospitalizations, increased quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost savings compared with no initiation or initiation after hospitalization.

Objectives: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We used a previously developed Markov model calibrated with patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF trial, adapted to the Portuguese setting. The model considers two health states (alive or dead) and uses regression analyzes to estimate hospitalizations and deaths over time. A panel of experts estimated resource consumption in the outpatient setting. To estimate resource consumption with hospitalizations, the National Health Service Diagnosis Related Groups database was used. Unit costs were based on national legislation, and on the Infomed database. The model considers a societal perspective, a time horizon of 30-years, and a 5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results. Results: Sacubitril/valsartan increases life expectancy by 0.5 life-years, corresponding to 0.4 incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALY) versus enalapril. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 22,702€/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that results are robust, but sensitive to the parameter estimates of the cardiovascular survival curve. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective therapeutic option in the treatment of Portuguese patients with HFrEF and translate into significant health gains and increased life expectancy versus the current standard of care.

Importance: In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 2 new medications for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine. However, few national data are available examining their contemporary use and associated costs., Objective: To evaluate national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine and associated therapeutic spending in Medicare Part D and Medicaid., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this US nationwide claims-based study, we analyzed data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event and Medicaid Utilization and Spending data sets to compare national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine between 2016 and 2017., Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in total spending, per-beneficiary/claim spending, number of beneficiaries, and number of claims between 2016 and 2017 for sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine., Results: The number of Medicare beneficiaries prescribed sacubitril/valsartan increased from 35 423 to 90 606 (156% increase from 2016 to 2017). Medicare beneficiaries prescribed ivabradine increased from 15 856 to 23 213 (46% increase). In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $227 million and $7.3 million on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine, respectively. This represented increases of 241% and 59% compared with 2016 spending, respectively. The annual Medicare per-beneficiary spending on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was $2512 and $2400. Parallel trends in use patterns and spending were observed among Medicaid beneficiaries., Conclusions and Relevance: Although initial experiences suggested slow uptake after regulatory approval, these national data demonstrate an increase in use of sacubitril/valsartan and, to a lesser degree, ivabradine in the United States. Current annual per-beneficiary expenditures remain less than spending thresholds that have been reported to be cost-effective. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote high-value care while improving affordability and access to established and emerging heart failure therapies.

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., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost impact of switching angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with hypertension., Methods: This study used the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linking with the Hospital Episode Statistics (April 2006 to March 2012). Adults with hypertension (n = 470) were followed from the first ARB prescription date to the switching date (preswitching period); then from the switching date to the date when study ended, patient left the dataset or died (postswitching period). Patients were divided into ACEIs-combined (n = 369) and ACEIs-monotherapy (n = 101) groups by whether additional antihypertensive drugs were prescribed with ACEIs in the postswitching period. Proportion of days covered (PDC), clinical outcomes and costs were compared between the preswitching and postswitching periods using a multilevel regression., Results: Overall, in the postswitching period, there was a significant increase in the proportion of nonadherence (PDC < 80%) (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.6-3.7), but a significant reduction in mean SBP (mean difference: -2.3; 95 CI: -3.4 to 1.2 mmHg) and mean DBP (mean difference: -1.9; 95% CI: -2.6 to -1.2 mmHg). However, these results were only observed in the ACEIs-combined group. There was no postswitching significant difference in either the incidence of individual or composite hypertension-related complications (OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). There was a significant reduction in the overall annual medical cost per patient by £329 (95% CI: -534 to -205)., Conclusion: Switching of ARBs to ACEIs monotherapy appeared to be clinically effective and a cost-saving strategy. The observed changes in the ACEIs-combined group are assumed to be related to factors other than the ARBs switching.

Purpose: Sacubitril/valsartan, the first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is a possible treatment option for chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan use in South Korea for treating patients with HFrEF compared with that of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)., Methods: A Markov model was designed to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with HFrEF. Cohorts in the alive-state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization because of deteriorated HF, adverse events (AEs), or death. Transition probabilities of sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril were estimated by using data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. The effectiveness of ARBs (eg, reduction in mortality and hospitalization rates) was assumed to be identical to that of enalapril, according to the results of the meta-analysis. However, there was no comparative evidence for AEs. We therefore conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and adjusted the incidence rate of AEs for ARBs. The utility for estimating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was elicited by the survey of the general South Korean population by using EuroQol-5 dimensions. We calculated the medical costs, including medication, monitoring, hospitalization, AEs, and terminal care, from the health care sector perspective. Costs and effectiveness were discounted by 5%. One-way sensitivity analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to determine the model robustness., Findings: The total cost per patient for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril was $25,832 and $18,295, respectively. Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ∼8- month longer life expectancy compared with enalapril and a QALY gain of 0.59. As a result, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was $12,722 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of sacubitril/valsartan versus ARB was $11,970 with an incurred cost of $18,741 for the ARB group. The main results and those of various sensitivity analyses were lower than a threshold of $20,000., Implications: From a health care sector perspective, sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment for HFrEF compared with enalapril and ARBs. This finding could be helpful for cardiologists or decision makers in reaching cost-effective choices regarding the treatment selection process., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAS) drugs have a proteinuria-reducing effect that could prevent the progression of kidney disease in diabetic patients. Our study aimed to assess the budget impact based on healthcare payer perspective of increasing uptake of RAS drugs into the current treatment mix of standard anti-hypertensive treatments to prevent progression of kidney disease in patient's comorbid with hypertension and diabetes., Methods: A Markov model of a Malaysian hypothetical cohort aged ≥30 years (N = 14,589,900) was used to estimate the total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs of RAS uptake. This involved an incidence and prevalence rate of 9.0% and 10.53% of patients with diabetes and hypertension respectively. Transition probabilities of health stages and costs were adapted from published data., Results: An increasing uptake of RAS drugs would incur a projected total treatment cost ranged from MYR 4.89 billion (PMPM of MYR 27.95) at Year 1 to MYR 16.26 billion (PMPM of MYR 92.89) at Year 5. This would represent a range of incremental costs between PMPM of MYR 0.20 at Year 1 and PMPM of MYR 1.62 at Year 5. Over the same period, the care costs showed a downward trend but drug acquisition costs were increasing. Sensitivity analyses showed the model was minimally affected by the changes in the input parameters., Conclusion: Mild impact to the overall healthcare budget has been reported with an increased utilization of RAS. The long-term positive health consequences of RAS treatment would reduce the cost of care in preventing deterioration of kidney function, thus offsetting the rising costs of purchasing RAS drugs. Optimizing and increasing use of RAS drugs would be considered an affordable and rational strategy to reduce the overall healthcare costs in Malaysia., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Heart failure affects over 1 million people in Germany and contributes to morbidity, mortality, and high healthcare costs. A recent large randomized controlled trial compared the novel compound sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor enalapril and found a 16% reduction in mortality hazard. In Germany, sacubitril/valsartan was launched at the beginning of 2016., Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a post hoc analysis of the cost effectiveness, budget impact, and disease burden reduction of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACE inhibitors for patients with heart failure from the perspective of the German social health insurance (SHI), based on the results of this trial., Methods: A Markov (cohort) state transition model was constructed to simulate treatment over a remaining lifetime. Based on the Markov model, a dynamic population model was developed that projects the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and healthcare costs of heart failure in the SHI population from 2017 to 2060. The population model follows prevalent and incident cohorts over time. Each year a new cohort is added, while the existing cohorts age by 1 year or die. To test for sensitivity of results, a Monte Carlo simulation was run., Results: Based on the price negotiated between manufacturer and representatives of the SHI, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACE inhibitors is €23,401 per life-year gained (in 2018 Euros). At a price of zero, the cost-effectiveness ratio is already €9594 per life-year gained due to high background costs of heart failure. Annual budget impact and reduction of disease burden reach a maximum at 4-8 years after launch (€221 million and 2.9%, respectively, in the base case)., Conclusions: The ICER of sacubitril/valsartan is projected to be at or below the level of other accepted interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic to severe heart failure in Germany. Projected budget impact leads to an increase in SHI expenditures by < 0.04% per year.

Almost all new treatments being developed for the next influenza pandemic target the virus. During the Ebola crisis in West Africa, patients were treated with an inexpensive generic statin/angiotensin receptor blocker combination that appeared to greatly improve survival. These drugs target the host response, not the virus, and probably reverse endothelial dysfunction. Scientists and health officials have shown little interest in this idea. Yet, during the early months of the next pandemic, vaccines will be unavailable and treatment options will be limited. Physicians should be prepared to undertake clinical trials of widely available generic drugs to determine whether they improve survival in patients with seasonal influenza, other emerging virus diseases, and other forms of acute critical illness. Public health officials should give these studies their strong support. If successful, they will suggest a 'bottom up' approach to patient care that could be implemented worldwide on the first pandemic day.

Objective: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective., Methods: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II-IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF-related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases., Results: In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost-effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively., Conclusions: SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market., (© 2018 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Our aim was to summarize published secondary analyses of the PARADIGM-HF trial. In the original trial, published in September 2014, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared to enalapril. This summary provides a resource for clinicians to review subsequent analyses of the landmark trial evaluating the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in various subgroups and providing information regarding optimal use of this new therapy in the broader heart failure population. A full list of publications of the existing PARDADIGM-HF post hoc analyses was obtained and summarized, grouped by focus (e.g., severity of illness, tolerability). Twenty-six publications and one abstract analyzing the PARADIGM-HF trial were reviewed, summarizing the most important results that compared the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril, including pertinent subgroup information from each analysis. Key publications evaluated the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan based on heart failure severity (i.e., ejection fraction or heart failure risk scores), impact on alternate outcomes, influence of additional therapies, tolerability in patients with comorbidities (i.e., diabetes), long-term benefits, and cost-effectiveness. In addition, nine ongoing phase III and phase IV clinical trials with sacubitril/valsartan were briefly summarized to address potential future uses in more extensive heart failure settings. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril for the primary endpoint in the PARADIGM-HF trial is maintained throughout numerous secondary analyses. Though the subgroups analyzed are based on participants from a single clinical trial, clinicians can more confidently incorporate this novel therapy into practice with expanded knowledge of these existing analyses as well as ongoing prospective trials., (© 2017 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

A novel antihypertensive drug, LCZ696 (Entresto®), has recently been introduced, which combines the action of an antagonist of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), effectively decreasing the blood pressure, with an inhibition of neprilysin, which is responsible for metabolizing natriuretic peptides exerting antihypertensive and antifibrotic effects. In this MiniReview, we describe the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, efficacy and side effects of the combined angiotensin receptor antagonist and neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696. We summarize the effect of LCZ696 treatment of patients suffering from hypertension and heart failure (HF) and further highlight the role of this new drug as a treatment option in the future. In the earlier stages of the treatment of patients with heart failure, LCZ696 was superior in lowering the blood pressure compared to olmesartan, while the effect on blood pressure at long-term treatment was comparable for the two drugs. The numbers of adverse effects were comparable. LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing mortality, hospitalizations and HF symptoms. Adverse effects were reduced with a slower up-titrating regimen of 6 weeks. The current results are promising and suggest that LCZ696 will be a new candidate for first-line treatment of HF. However, it needs to be explored whether LCZ696 is safe in pregnant women, what are the effects of long-term LCZ696 treatment on survival and whether the antifibrotic effects can be of major benefit in, for example HF with preserved ejection fraction., (© 2017 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

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, β-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 β-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 β-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., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Once the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from brand-name to generics may occur. Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparative bioavailability studies. Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level. We evaluated the impact of 3 generic angiotensin II receptor blockers commercialization on adverse events: hospitalizations or emergency room consultations., Methods and Results: This is an interrupted time series analysis using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Rates of adverse events for losartan, valsartan, and candesartan users (N=136 177) aged ≥66 years were calculated monthly, 24 months before and 12 months after generics commercialization. Periods before and after generics commercialization were compared by negative binomial segmented regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. For all users, there was a monthly mean rate of 100 adverse events for 1000 angiotensin II receptor blocker users before and after generic commercialization. Among generic users of losartan, valsartan, and candesartan, there was an increase in rates of adverse events of 8.0% (difference of proportions versus brand-name, 7.5% [95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 15.9%]; P =0.0643), 11.7% (difference of proportions, 17.1% [95% confidence interval, 9.9%-24.3%]; P <0.0001), and 14.0% (difference of proportions, 16.6% [95% confidence interval, 7.9%-25.3%]; P <0.0001), respectively, the month of generic commercialization. The monthly trend of adverse events was affected for generic versus brand-name losartan users only (difference of proportions, 2.0% [0.7%-3.4%]; P =0.0033) ≤1 year after generics commercialization. Similar results were found in sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Among generic users, immediate or delayed differences in adverse events rates were observed right after generic commercialization for 3 antihypertensive drugs. Rates of adverse events remained higher for generic users. Increases were more pronounced for generic candesartan, which is the studied product with the largest difference in comparative bioavailability. Risk and survival analysis studies controlling for several potential confounding factors are required to better characterize generic substitution., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a rare kidney disorder impacting ∼1:2,500 individuals among the general US population. Hypertension is a significant predictor of ADPKD progression, and a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause for mortality among ADPKD patients. Angiotensin-converting enzymes inhibitors (ACE-I) are widely used as first-line treatment in ADPKD for the management of hypertension. However, their cost-effectiveness relative to other hypertensive medications, such as angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), has never been assessed., Objective: To determine if ARB are more cost-effective than ACE-Is as first-line treatment in ADPKD., Methods: A Markov-state decision model was constructed for estimation of cost and outcome benefits in hypertensive ADPKD patients. Transition probabilities were extrapolated from a retrospective cohort study comparing chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage transitions in ADPKD patients. Annual pharmaceutical costs per average daily dose per CKD stage were extracted from a US healthcare claims database. Median total healthcare costs per CKD stage or transplant were extracted from the published literature. The time horizon was set to 30 years, with 1-year duration to cycle shift. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ACE-I vs ARB per additional year of prevented transplant and/or death. A one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted, with 10% variation in probabilities and cost., Results: Total annual healthcare costs accrued after 30 years among ADPKD patients taking ACE-Is was estimated to be $3,505,028.41, compared to ARB at $3,644,327.65. Life expectancy was increased by 1.39 years among patients taking ACE-I. Approximate 10-year survival in patients taking ACE-Is was 47% compared to ARB at 34%., Conclusions: ACE-I dominated ARB and displayed greater cost-effectiveness due to lower cost and increased capacity to prolong years of life without transplant or death among hypertensive ADPKD patients. This model strengthens the value of ACE-I over ARB as first-line treatment for hypertension management in ADPKD patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan combines a neprilysin inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker. As an inhibitor of neprilysin, an enzyme that degrades biologically active natriuretic peptides, this first-in-class therapy increases levels of circulating natriuretic peptides, resulting in natriuretic, diuretic, and vasodilatory effects. In patients with chronic New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the PARADIGM-HF trial demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization, compared with enalapril. The rate of all-cause mortality was also significantly reduced. Subsequently, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America recently updated guideline recommendations for Stage C patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to recommend angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril/valsartan in conjunction with other evidence-based therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality. Several analyses have suggested the cost-effectiveness of this new therapy. To ensure tolerability, initiating the lower dosage form of sacubitril/valsartan is warranted in patients with severe renal impairment, moderate hepatic impairment, and low blood pressure, and close monitoring is warranted in such patients. A 36-hour washout period is recommended when switching patients from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to sacubitril/valsartan. Similarly, sacubitril/valsartan is contraindicated in patients receiving concomitant angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and those with a history of angioedema., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: See www.bmj.com/about-bmj/freelance-contributors/margaret-mccartney.

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., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The association between industry payments to physicians and prescribing rates of the brand-name medications that are being promoted is controversial. In the United States, industry payment data and Medicare prescribing records recently became publicly available., Objective: To study the association between physicians' receipt of industry-sponsored meals, which account for roughly 80% of the total number of industry payments, and rates of prescribing the promoted drug to Medicare beneficiaries., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of industry payment data from the federal Open Payments Program for August 1 through December 31, 2013, and prescribing data for individual physicians from Medicare Part D, for all of 2013. Participants were physicians who wrote Medicare prescriptions in any of 4 drug classes: statins, cardioselective β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACE inhibitors and ARBs), and selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs). We identified physicians who received industry-sponsored meals promoting the most-prescribed brand-name drug in each class (rosuvastatin, nebivolol, olmesartan, and desvenlafaxine, respectively). Data analysis was performed from August 20, 2015, to December 15, 2015., Exposures: Receipt of an industry-sponsored meal promoting the drug of interest., Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescribing rates of promoted drugs compared with alternatives in the same class, after adjustment for physician prescribing volume, demographic characteristics, specialty, and practice setting., Results: A total of 279 669 physicians received 63 524 payments associated with the 4 target drugs. Ninety-five percent of payments were meals, with a mean value of less than $20. Rosuvastatin represented 8.8% (SD, 9.9%) of statin prescriptions; nebivolol represented 3.3% (7.4%) of cardioselective β-blocker prescriptions; olmesartan represented 1.6% (3.9%) of ACE inhibitor and ARB prescriptions; and desvenlafaxine represented 0.6% (2.6%) of SSRI and SNRI prescriptions. Physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest had higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin over other statins (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.18), nebivolol over other β-blockers (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.69-1.72), olmesartan over other ACE inhibitors and ARBs (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.51-1.53), and desvenlafaxine over other SSRIs and SNRIs (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.13-2.23). Receipt of additional meals and receipt of meals costing more than $20 were associated with higher relative prescribing rates., Conclusions and Relevance: Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.

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.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of sacubitril-valsartan relative to enalapril for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Background: Compared with enalapril, combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI), as is found in sacubitril-valsartan, reduces cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization rates in patients with HFrEF., Methods: Using a Markov model, costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness were estimated for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril therapies for the treatment of HFrEF. Patients were 60 years of age at model entry and were modeled over a lifetime (40 years) from a third-party payer perspective. Clinical probabilities were derived predominantly from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). All costs and effects were discounted at a 3% rate annually and are presented in 2015 U.S. dollars., Results: In the base case, sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, was more costly ($60,391 vs. $21,758) and more effective (6.49 vs. 5.74 QALYs) over a lifetime. The cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan was highly dependent on duration of treatment, ranging from $249,411 per QALY at 3 years to $50,959 per QALY gained over a lifetime., Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan may be a cost-effective treatment option depending on the willingness-to-pay threshold. Future investigations should incorporate real-world evidence with sacubitril-valsartan to further inform decision making., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To assess clinical characteristics, pharmacotherapy treatment patterns, resource utilization and associated charges, and morbidity and mortality outcomes among a real-world cohort of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in an academic medical center setting., Design: Retrospective analysis., Data Source: Electronic health record database that includes clinical, laboratory, and administrative data for all facilities of the University of Utah Health Care System., Patients: A total of 989 adults with prevalent (preexisting) HFrEF, identified by using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 428.x (heart failure) between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013, and who had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or lower., Measurements and Main Results: The cohort had a mean age of 64 ± 15 years and was predominantly white (71%) and male (74%). Patients received β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and aldosterone receptor antagonists (ARAs) at rates of 79%, 69%, and 29%, respectively. Patients achieved target doses of β-blockers, ACEIs, and ARBs at rates of only 24%, 31%, and 13%, respectively. Overall, 58% of patients were prescribed dual therapy with a β-blocker and an ACEI or ARB, and 19% were prescribed triple therapy (β-blocker, an ACEI or ARB, and an ARA). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the association between baseline characteristics with the presence of triple therapy. Two variables were statistically significant in both models: increasing age was associated with a lower odds of triple therapy (univariate: odds ratio [OR] 0.760, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.673-0.857; multivariate: OR 0.768, 95% CI 0.625-0.942), whereas receipt of an implantable cardiac device was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of triple therapy (univariate: OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.1; multivariate: OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.5). During a mean ± SD follow-up of 36 ± 27 months, all-cause mortality was 0.12 per person-year. There were 1311 all-cause hospitalizations of which 611 (47%) were for worsening heart failure. The rate of all-cause and heart failure-specific hospitalizations was 0.44 and 0.21 per person-year of follow-up, respectively. The median length of stay was 6.4 ± 8.8 days, and the median charge was $22,310. The 30-day all-cause readmission rate was 20%, and the primary reason for readmission was heart failure in 65% of cases., Conclusion: This study demonstrates the continuing significant disease and economic burden for patients with HFrEF. Challenges remain in utilization of established disease-modifying therapy and in the treatment of patients with HFrEF and multiple comorbidities., (© 2016 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

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.

Background: Arterial hypertension (AH) represents a public health problem in Poland, firstly due to the huge, still growing population of patients (10.45 million patients based on NATPOL 2011 and PolSenior Surveys), and secondly because of the substantial cost of reimbursement from the National Health Fund (NHF). The most commonly used drugs in the treatment of AH include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), the latter being associated with significantly higher unit reimbursement cost. Recent meta-analyses of randomised, controlled trials indicate that there is no medical reason to favour ARBs over ACEIs in AH treatment., Aim: To assess the clinical benefit of using ACEIs instead of ARBs and to calculate the potential savings for the payer and patients associated with changing the treatment paradigm to preferential use of ACEIs., Methods: The assessment of clinical consequences includes differences between ACEIs and ARBs in terms of average life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The impact of these drugs on general mortality was estimated based on the meta-analysis carried out by van Vark et al. in 2012. Patients' health-related quality of life was adjusted with Polish population utility norms derived for the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and additionally for ACEI-induced cough-related utility decrease. Potential savings for the payer on a yearly basis were calculated for a hypothetical cohort of patients who are currently treated with ARBs and might be switched to ACEIs. The number of patients treated with ARBs and ACEIs was estimated based on NHF and IMS Health data., Results: ACEIs were associated with a statistically significant 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, which results in extra life gained of 0.354 years (4.2 months) or an additional 0.201 QALY (2.4 months). Potential annual savings could amount to 112.0 million PLN (25.7 million EUR) and 10.5 million PLN (2.4 million EUR) for the public payer (NHF) and patients, respectively; and 1768 cardiovascular deaths per year could be prevented., Conclusions: Preferential use of ACEIs in comparison with ARBs in the treatment of AH is associated with substantial extension of life (including quality-adjusted life), reduction of cardiovascular deaths, and savings for the NHF and patients.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction: Pharmaceutical expenditure is rising by 16% per annum in China and is now 46% of total expenditure. Initiatives to moderate growth include drug pricing regulations and encouraging international non-proprietary name prescribing. However, there is no monitoring of physician prescribing quality and perverse incentives., Objectives: Assess changes in angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) utilization and expenditure as more generics become available; compare findings to Europe., Methodology: Observational retrospective study of ARB utilization and expenditure between 2006 and 2012 in the largest hospital in Chongqing district., Results: Variable and low use of generics versus originators with a maximum of 31% among single ARBs. Similar for fixed dose combinations. Prices typically reduced over time, greatest for generic telmisartan (-54%), mirroring price reductions in some European countries. However, no preferential increase in prescribing of lower cost generics. Accumulated savings of 33 million CNY for this large provider if they adopted European practices., Conclusion: Considerable opportunities to improve prescribing efficiency in China.

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., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Hypertension poses a huge financial risk to any funder/medical aid, including the risk-mitigating strategies provided by the managed care organisations that are required to manage patients with hypertension. The South African Hypertension Guideline states that the choice of therapy--an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)--should be based on cost and tolerability., Objective: To assess the costs of ACEIs v. ARBs in the management of hypertensive patients and the prevention of cardiovascular complications for a private medical aid scheme in South Africa., Method: A Phase IV observational, retrospective cohort study of over 480 000 beneficiaries between 2010 and 2011 was undertaken. Hypertensive patients were identified by their chronic medication authorisation and were categorised into three groups: ACEI, ARB and combined groups. A cost-benefit analysis was performed on the claims data, comparing the input costs in rand against the downstream costs using analysis of variance., Results: Data from 28 165 patients were included in the study. Based on the health economic analysis that was performed, there was no statistically significant difference in the input costs between the ACEI and the ARB groups. However, a statistically significant reduction in the downstream costs was observed in the ACEI group v. the ARB and combined groups (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: It is more cost beneficial to treat chronic hypertensive patients with an ACEI than ARBs in preventing cardiovascular-related complications. It is recommended that managed care companies continue recommending ACEIs rather than ARBs in the treatment of hypertensive patients.

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.

Introduction: Renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs have been a target for health authority initiatives across Europe with the potential for substantial savings once generic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) became available without compromising care. Recently, losartan was the first angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to lose its patent. In Denmark, the authorities removed all other ARBs from the reimbursement list, apart from losartan, as they were all seen as essentially similar for the management of hypertension or congestive heart failure at appropriate doses, but more expensive. Similarly, all other ARB fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), apart from losartan, were removed from the reimbursement list., Objective: The aims of the study were to (i) assess the impact of these reimbursement changes on the subsequent utilisation of losartan and other ARBs alone or as FDCs; (ii) assess changes in the prices of losartan and other ARBs post-generic losartan to calculate potential savings; and (iii) compare the impact of the policies in Denmark with other European countries to provide guidance., Methodology: This was a retrospective segmented regression analysis of an interrupted time-series design comparing utilisation patterns before and after the changes in ARB reimbursement status. Utilisation was measured in defined daily doses (DDDs). Changes in total expenditure and expenditure/DDD were also assessed over time., Results: Losartan utilisation grew from 31 to 33 % of total single ARB utilisation before generic losartan, to 93 % by October 2011. There was a corresponding decrease in the utilisation of all other ARBs. Both changes were significant (p < 0.001). Total expenditure on single ARBs in 2011 was 77 % below 2009 levels despite a 16 % increase in utilisation. Estimated savings were 290.5 million Danish Kroner (DKK). A similar trend was seen for losartan FDCs, which was also significant (p < 0.001)., Discussion: Losartan utilisation grew appreciable following the changes. The change was much greater than seen in countries that had eased prescribing restrictions for losartan but not the other ARBs. Active therapeutic switching programmes plus education and financial incentives also significantly enhanced losartan utilisation following generics in two countries and regions; however, the increase in losartan utilisation was less than that seen in Denmark.

Question Under Study: Due to greater life expectancy, costs of medication have increased within the last decade. This investigation assesses health care expenditures needed to manage the current state of blood pressure (BP) control in Switzerland., Objectives: a) average day therapy costs (DTC) of substances, b) actual DTC of currently prescribed antihypertensive therapy, c) monetary differences of treatment regimens within different BP-groups and different high risk patients, d) estimated compliance-related financial loss/annum and adjusted costs/annum. Single-pill-combinations appear to be useful to increase patient's compliance, to reduce side effects and to bring more patients to their blood pressure goal., Methods: Costs were identified based on data from the Swiss department of health. We calculated DTC for each patient using prices of the largest available tablet box., Results: The average antihypertensive therapy in Switzerland currently costs CHF 1.198 ± 0.732 per day. On average beta blockers were the cheapest substances, followed by angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ARBs), calcium channel blockers and diuretics. The widest price ranges were observed within the class of ARBs. Most expensive were patients with impaired renal function. Throughout all stages, single-pill-combinations appeared to be significantly cheaper than dual-free-combinations. Stage-II-hypertension yielded the highest costs for dual free combination drug use. The actual costs for all patients observed in this analysis added up to CHF 1,525,962. Based on a compliance model, only treatment amounting to CHF 921,353 is expected to be actually taken., Conclusion: A disproportionately high healthcare cost is expected due to compliance reasons. The prescription of mono-therapies appears to be a major cost factor, thus, the use of single-pill-combination therapy can be considered as a suitable approach to saving costs throughout all BP- stages.

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., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Poor antihypertensive treatment adherence adversely affects blood pressure control. We analyzed US health plan data to assess the impact of fixed- versus loose-dose triple-combination therapy on adherence, clinical, and economic outcomes. Patients initiating triple therapy with an angiotensin receptor blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or beta blocker plus amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide comprised three cohorts. Within-cohort comparisons were made between fixed-dose combinations of two antihypertensives plus a second pill (two pills) or three separate pills. Outcomes included adherence, cardiovascular events, health care resource use, and costs for patients with ≥ 12 months follow-up. A total of 16,290 patients were matched. Patients receiving two pills were more likely to be adherent (P < .001) and less likely to discontinue treatment (P < .001) across all cohorts. Therapy with two versus three pills resulted in significantly lower adjusted risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = .005) in the beta blocker cohort only. Total adjusted health care costs were significantly lower for two- versus three-pill therapy in the beta blocker cohort only (cost ratio = 0.74 overall, P < .01; 0.71 hypertension-attributable, P < .01). In patients with hypertension requiring triple therapy, fixed-dose combinations that lower pill burden may improve adherence (seen across all cohorts) and clinical outcomes (seen in the beta blocker cohort) without increasing health care costs., (Copyright © 2013 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)