Economic impact of switching from metoprolol to nebivolol for hypertension treatment: a retrospective database analysis

Multiple sclerosis relapse rates and healthcare costs of two versions of glatiramer acetate

Objective: To compare relapse rates and healthcare costs in MS patients treated with Glatopa 20 mg (generic glatiramer acetate) versus Copaxone 20 mg in a US managed care population.Methods: A retrospective claims study was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients with ≥1 Glatopa or Copaxone claim between 01 April 2015 (Glatopa) or 01 January 2013 (Copaxone) and 30 April 2018 were included. Patients with prior Copaxone 40 mg use or <1 year continuous health plan enrollment were excluded. Patients who switched from Glatopa to Copaxone were censored. Glatopa users were matched to Copaxone users, and outcomes measured at 6-12 months follow-up.Results: A total of 357 Glatopa and 2291 Copaxone patients qualified for inclusion; 158 per cohort were retained after matching. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced (mean age 49.9 years, 75% female, mean 3.8 Copaxone fills). At baseline, 8% of patients had ≥1 relapse with mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) of 0.18; at follow-up, the relapse rates were 8% versus 15% (Glatopa versus Copaxone; p = .05), and ARRs were 0.12 versus 0.30 (p = .05). 45% of Glatopa patients switched (back) to Copaxone 20/40 mg and were censored at that point. Mean (SD) all-cause medical and pharmacy costs were $51,507 ($28,494) versus $55,085 ($37,061; p = .50). Mean MS-related costs were $45,379 ($24,732) versus $47,949 ($32,615; p = .67), of which mean disease modifying therapy costs were $42,926 ($23,196) versus $44,932 ($28,554; p = .59). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: In this real-world study, MS patients treated with Glatopa experienced similar health outcomes and costs compared to those treated with Copaxone, with a trend towards lower relapse rates (borderline statistically significant) and cost savings (not statistically significant).

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs in nondiabetic patients with hypertension: A population-based study

The authors compared the effectiveness of thiazide diuretic (TD), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), and calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapies for the treatment of nondiabetic hypertension using MarketScan Databases 2010-2014. Multivariable Cox regression models assessed whether the addition of a new antihypertensive drug, treatment discontinuation, or switch and major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events varied across groups. A total of 565 009 patients started monotherapy with ACEIs (43.6%), CCBs (23.6%), TDs (18.8%), or ARBs (14.0%). Patients who took TDs had a higher risk for either drug addition or discontinuation than patients who took ACEIs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.68-0.70] vs HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.80-0.81]), ARBs (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.66-0.68] vs HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.65-0.67]), and CCBs (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.87] vs HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95]). Conversely, patients who took TDs experienced a lower risk of clinical events compared with patients who took ACEIs (HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.15-1.33]), ARBs (HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.39]), and CCBs (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.25-1.46]). Our results provide a strong rationale for choosing TDs as first-line monotherapy for the control of hypertension.

A Review of Nebivolol Pharmacology and Clinical Evidence

Nebivolol is a highly selective β1-adrenergic receptor antagonist with a pharmacologic profile that differs from those of other drugs in its class. In addition to cardioselectivity mediated via β1 receptor blockade, nebivolol induces nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation by stimulating endothelial nitric oxide synthase via β3 agonism. This vasodilatory mechanism is distinct from those of other vasodilatory β-blockers (carvedilol, labetalol), which are mediated via α-adrenergic receptor blockade. Nebivolol is approved for the treatment of hypertension in the US, and for hypertension and heart failure in Europe. While β-blockers are not recommended within the current US guidelines as first-line therapy for treatment of essential hypertension, nebivolol has shown comparable efficacy to currently recommended therapies in lowering peripheral blood pressure in adults with hypertension with a very low rate of side effects. Nebivolol also has beneficial effects on central blood pressure compared with other β-blockers. Clinical data also suggest that nebivolol may be useful in patients who have experienced erectile dysfunction while on other β-blockers. Here we review the pharmacological profile of nebivolol, the clinical evidence supporting its use in hypertension as monotherapy, add-on, and combination therapy, and the data demonstrating its positive effects on heart failure and endothelial dysfunction.