Literature DB >> 12484804

Comparative cost effectiveness of angiotensin II receptor blockers in a US managed care setting: olmesartan medoxomil compared with losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan.

W Robert Simons1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) olmesartan medoxomil, losartan, valsartan and irbesartan for the treatment of hypertension, from the perspective of a US managed care setting.
METHODS: The evaluation was based on a recently completed, prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing the antihypertensive efficacy of these agents. Differences in diastolic blood pressure reductions among the comparative agents were used to estimate reductions in the annualised risk of cardiovascular (CV) and cerebrovascular events using the Framingham model. These annualised risks were translated into reductions in healthcare expenditures associated with treating CV events covered by managed care in the US. Data sources included: the recently published clinical trial of ARB antihypertensive efficacy, the Framingham Heart Study and a managed care database. Actual reimbursed amounts were used.
RESULTS: Based on antihypertensive efficacy data versus irbesartan, the use of olmesartan medoxomil is expected to reduce the number of new cases of CV disease, resulting in a first-year reduction in cost in a cohort of 100,000 patients of 906,000 US dollars. Similarly, a reduction in new cases of coronary heart disease (CHD) resulted in a cost reduction of 701,000 US dollars; a cost reduction of 196,000 US dollars for fewer myocardial infarctions (MI); and a cost reduction of 28,000 US dollars for fewer strokes. Over 5 years, these estimates increase to 5,410,000 US dollars for fewer cases of CV disease; 3,975,000 US dollars for fewer cases of CHD; 1,430,000 US dollars for fewer MI; and 497,000 US dollars for fewer strokes. Compared with valsartan, the use of olmesartan medoxomil is estimated to reduce by 3,397,000 US dollars the expected cost of treating a cohort of 100 000 patients in the first year for fewer cases of CV disease; by 2,426,000 US dollars for fewer cases of CHD; by 565,000 US dollars for fewer MI; and by 124,000 US dollars for fewer strokes. Over 5 years, these estimates increase to 16,231,000 US dollars for CV disease; 11,955,000 US dollars for CHD; 4,505,000 US dollars for MI; and 1,741,000 dollars for stroke. Compared with losartan, the estimated reduction in first-year cost is 2,969,000 US dollars for CV disease for the cohort of 100,000 patients; 2,163,000 US dollars for CHD; 732,000 US dollars for MI; and 124,000 US dollars for stroke. Over 5 years, these estimates increase to 15,149,000 US dollars for CV disease; 11,107,000 US dollars for CHD; 4,057,000 US dollars for MI; and 1,437,000 dollars for stroke.
CONCLUSION: Based on comparative antihypertensive efficacy data, treatment of hypertensive patients with olmesartan medoxomil instead of the other leading ARBs has the potential to reduce overall cost of medical care in a US managed care setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12484804     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200321010-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  13 in total

Review 1.  Cost benefit of treating hypertension.

Authors:  B Jönsson; M Johannesson
Journal:  Clin Exp Hypertens       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.749

2.  Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: what are reasonable standards for clinical evidence--the Australian experience.

Authors:  S Hill; D Henry; B Pekarsky; A Mitchell
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  A review of cost-effectiveness analyses of hypertension treatment.

Authors:  M Johannesson; B Jönsson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Blood pressure as a cardiovascular risk factor: prevention and treatment.

Authors:  W B Kannel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996 May 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  New models for predicting cardiovascular events.

Authors:  P M Odell; K M Anderson; W B Kannel
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Variations in compliance among hypertensive patients by drug class: implications for health care costs.

Authors:  J A Rizzo; W R Simons
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  1997 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.393

7.  Implications of small reductions in diastolic blood pressure for primary prevention.

Authors:  N R Cook; J Cohen; P R Hebert; J O Taylor; C H Hennekens
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1995-04-10

8.  Cardiovascular disease risk profiles.

Authors:  K M Anderson; P M Odell; P W Wilson; W B Kannel
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 9.  Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context.

Authors:  R Collins; R Peto; S MacMahon; P Hebert; N H Fiebach; K A Eberlein; J Godwin; N Qizilbash; J O Taylor; C H Hennekens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-04-07       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension.

Authors:  S Oparil; D Williams; S G Chrysant; T C Marbury; J Neutel
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Improving Adherence to Treatment and Reducing Economic Costs of Hypertension: The Role of Olmesartan-Based Treatment.

Authors:  Francesco Vittorio Costa
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2017-07-10

Review 2.  Olmesartan medoxomil: current status of its use in monotherapy.

Authors:  Hans R Brunner
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2006
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.