Impact of delisting ARBs, apart from losartan, on ARB utilisation patterns in Denmark: implications for other countries

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.

Impact of antihypertensive medication adherence on blood pressure control in hypertension: the COMFORT study

BACKGROUND

It has not been fully elucidated whether antihypertensive medication adherence affects blood pressure (BP) control in hypertension cases.

AIM

To investigate the association of adherence to antihypertensive drug regimens and BP control using data from the Combination Pill of Losartan Potassium and Hydrochlorothiazide for Improvement of Medication Compliance Trial (COMFORT) study.

DESIGN

An observational analysis from a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 203 hypertensive subjects were randomly assigned to a daily regimen of a combination pill (losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) or two pills, an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a thiazide diuretic. Medication adherence calculated based on pill counts and BPs was evaluated at 1, 3 and 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

The subjects were divided into three groups according to their adherence, i.e. relatively low-adherence (<90%; n = 19), moderate-adherence (90-99%; n = 71) and high-adherence (100%; n = 113) groups. Clinical characteristics of the subjects including BP, sex, randomized treatments and past medical history did not differ significantly among the three groups. Achieved follow-up BPs over the 6-month treatment period, which were adjusted for age, sex, baseline BP and randomized treatment, were significantly higher in the low-adherence group (135/78 mmHg) compared with the high-adherence (130/74 mmHg; P = 0.02/0.02) and the moderate-adherence (128/74 mmHg; P = 0.003/0.02) groups.

CONCLUSION

Low adherence to an antihypertensive-drug regimen was associated with poor BP control.

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

BACKGROUND

Encouraging the prescribing of ACEIs first line vs. angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been a health authority focus with generic ACEIs as ACEIs and ARBs have similar effectiveness and there is limited coughing with ACEIs. This includes Sweden with its multiple initiatives keeping expenditure on renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs similar between 2001 and 2007 despite appreciably increased volumes. Generic losartan became available and was reimbursed in March 2010 providing further opportunities for the authorities in Sweden to save costs with all ARBs seen as similar in managing hypertension and CHF at appropriate doses.

AIMS

The main aim of this study was to assess changes in the utilisation of losartan vs. other single ARBs after generic losartan alongside accompanying demand-side measures. Additional aims were to (i) assess changes in the price of generic losartan and single ARB expenditure over time; (ii) suggest additional programmes, if needed; and (iii) analyse utilisation of ARB FDCs and compare with ACEI FDCs.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study using an interrupted time series design.

RESULTS

Multiple demand-side measures introduced among the 21 Counties in Sweden significantly enhanced the utilisation of generic losartan, growing from 26% to 27% of total ARBs (DDD basis) before generic losartan to 40% by August 2011. Losartan was principally generics (97% by August 2011). Expenditure/DDD for generic losartan was 10% of the pre-patent loss price in August 2011. This reduced total single ARB expenditure by 26% by the study end despite a 16% increase in utilisation. Greater utilisation of ARB FDCs than seen with ACEI FDCs. This may be due to similarities in prices between single and FDC ARBs.

DISCUSSION

Multiple demand-side measures appreciably enhanced ARB prescribing efficiency, mirroring other studies. No significant increase in losartan utilisation following generics was seen in European countries where no specific measures were instigated. Losartan price reduction was in line with expectations.

CONCLUSION

Multiple and intensive demand-side measures are needed to change physician prescribing habits. Authorities cannot rely on physicians transferring their activities from one class to another without interventions.

Are prescribing initiatives readily transferable across classes: the case of generic losartan in Scotland?

BACKGROUND

There are on-going initiatives in Scotland to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing in primary care. Activities to enhance prescribing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) versus angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) include prescribing guidance, guidelines, benchmarking, prescribing targets and financial incentives. These measures stabilised reimbursed expenditure for renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs between 2001 and 2007 despite a 159% increase in volumes. Generic losartan was included in the Drug Tariff from July 2010. As there is no appreciable difference between ARBs, and the prices of generic losartan are falling, health boards should be actively encouraging its prescribing.

AIM

To primarily assess changes in utilisation patterns of losartan versus other ARBs after July 2010. Second, to assess the utilisation of generic versus originator losartan.

METHOD

We used an interrupted time series analysis of ARB utilisation, measured in defined daily doses (DDDs) before and after July 2010. Utilisation data were obtained from the NHS National Services Scotland Corporate Warehouse.

RESULTS

There was no significant change in the utilisation pattern of losartan or other ARBs combined before or after the introduction of generic losartan. Losartan accounted for 32% of total ARBs 12 months after listing. Between 98 and 99% of losartan was prescribed generically. In March 2012, the price of losartan was 88% below prepatent prices with potential savings of ?8m per year.

CONCLUSION

Specific measures are needed to change prescribing habits especially with complex messages. The cost of deriving savings must be weighed against other quality initiatives and other ARBs losing or shortly losing their patents.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment.

METHODS

Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period.

RESULTS

When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of valsartan versus losartan and the effect of switching

OBJECTIVES

Losartan will shortly become generic, and this may encourage switching to the generic drug. However, valsartan was shown in a meta-analysis to be statistically superior in lowering blood pressure (BP) to losartan. This paper examines the costs of treatment with these two drugs and the potential consequences of switching established valsartan patients to generic losartan.

METHODS

A US payer cost-effectiveness model was developed incorporating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events related to systolic blood pressure (SBP) control comparing valsartan to continual losartan and switching from valsartan to generic losartan. The model, based upon a meta-analysis by Nixon et al. and Framingham equations, included first CVD event costs calculated from US administrative data sets and utility values from published sources. The modeled outcomes were number of CVD events, costs and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY).

RESULTS

Fewer patients had fatal and non-fatal CVD events with valsartan therapy compared with continual losartan and with patients switched from valsartan to generic losartan. The base-case model results indicated that continued treatment with valsartan had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,268 and $25,460 per life year gained, and $32,313 and $30,170 per QALY gained, relative to continual losartan and switching treatments, respectively. Sensitivity analyses found that patient discontinuation post-switching was a sensitive parameter. Including efficacy offsets with lowered adherence or discontinuation resulted in more favorable ratios for valsartan compared to switching therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The model does not evaluate post-primary CVD events and considers change in SBP from baseline level as the sole predictor of CVD risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Valsartan appears to be cost-effective compared to switching to generic losartan and switching to the generic drug does not support a cost offset argument over the longer term. Physicians should continue to consider the needs of individual patient and not cost offsets.

Economic evaluation of irbesartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension in Greece

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates irbesartan in relation to commonly used alternative hypertension therapies losartan and valsartan given in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the general hypertensive population in Greece.

METHODS

A Markov model with eight states of health was constructed: hypertension, myocardial infarction (MI), post-MI, angina, stroke, poststroke, heart failure, and death. The model has an annual cycle and estimates mean quality-adjusted survival and treatment cost, which reflect the hypertension treatment and managing cardiovascular events. Risk functions were used to conduct extrapolations. Data on treatment effectiveness, quality of life (QOL) and epidemiology were obtained from published clinical trials and studies. The database of the main Greek National Social Insurance Institute (IKA) was analyzed to estimate the cost of events. The analysis was done from a payer perspective. All outcomes were discounted, and prices correspond to 2008.

RESULTS

The estimated patient cost per annum was stable angina euro 2,252, unstable angina euro 2,572, myocardial infarction euro 2,473, post-MI euro 1,677, stroke euro 12,233, poststroke euro 1,240, heart failure euro 2,655, coronary angiography euro 1,544, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty euro 6,511, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery euro 11,514. For the baseline group (age 57 years, systolic blood pressure 147 mmHg, cholesterol 6.00 mmol/L, body mass index 29) of men with mild to moderate hypertension, for irbesartan, the total treatment cost was euro 15,146, for losartan euro 15,696 and for valsartan euro 15,613; the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were irbesartan 12.67, losartan 12.63 and valsartan 12.64. For the baseline group of women with mild to moderate hypertension, the total treatment cost was euro 12,945 for irbesartan, euro 13,424 for losartan and euro 13,379 for valsartan; QALYs were 14.29 for irbesartan, 14.27 for losartan and 14.27 for valsartan. For men with severe hypertension, for irbesartan and losartan, the total treatment cost was euro 18,679 and euro 21,488 and QALYs 12.47 and 12.37, respectively. For women, the total treatment cost was euro 16,202 and euro 19,099 and QALYs 14.16 and 14.09, respectively. Similar results were obtained in relation to other treatment groups in various sensitivity analysis scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on efficacy data from clinical trials and lower attainment costs in various hypertensive patient populations, irbesartan in combination with HCTZ compares favorably with losartan and valsartan in combination with HCTZ in the Greek setting.

Comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of candesartan and losartan in the management of hypertension and heart failure: a systematic review, meta- and cost-utility analysis

The UK National Health Service (NHS) currently spends in excess of £250 million per annum on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure; with candesartan currently dominating the market. With the recent introduction of generic losartan, we set out to directly compare the branded market leader to its now cheaper alternative. The primary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of candesartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension and chronic heart failure, respectively. The secondary objective was to model their comparative incremental cost-effectiveness in a UK NHS setting. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Hypertension and Heart Group's specialist register, Medline (1950-February 2010), and Embase (1980-February 2010) were included in the search strategy. Selection criteria were randomised studies of candesartan versus losartan in adults (> 18 years). The main outcome measures were as follows: Hypertension: mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP. Heart failure: composite of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for management of heart failure. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eight (three of which met inclusion criteria) and zero trials compared candesartan directly with losartan in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, respectively. A between-treatment difference of -1.96 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.40 to -1.51] for trough diastolic BP and -3.00 mmHg (95% CI -3.79 to -2.22) for trough systolic BP in favour of candesartan was observed. Based on this differential, a 10-year Markov model estimates the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to exceed £40,000 for using candesartan in place of generic losartan. Candesartan reduces BP to a slightly greater extent when compared with losartan, however, such difference is unlikely to be cost-effective based on current acquisition costs, perceived NHS affordability thresholds and use of combination regimens. We could find no robust evidence supporting the superiority of candesartan over losartan in the treatment of heart failure. We therefore recommend using generic losartan as the ARB of choice which could save the UK NHS approximately £200 million per annum in drug costs.

[Economic impact of Losartan use in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy]

BACKGROUND

The study RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) demonstrated that Losartan was more effective lo reduce the progression of kidney disease in diabetic patients with proteinuria and a reduction in glomerular filtration rate.

AIM

To perform a cost benefit analysis of Losartan use from provider and payer points of view.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Published data of the RENAAL study was analyzed. The costs of the use or not use of Losartan in patients with diabetic nephropathy were compared in terms of total costs of the disease including medications, hospital admissions for myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents and congestive cardiac failure and the costs of chronic hemodialysis.

RESULTS

The reduction in antihypertensive medication use, hospital admissions, and the delay in dialysis requirement from a mean of 65 to 79 months induced by Losartan use, results in net savings of $7,576,135 per patient, at 3.5 years of intervention. The figure does not change using different sensitivity scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The eventual use of Losartan in type 2 diabetic patients results in important savings.

Evaluation of the clinical outcomes of switching patients from atorvastatin to simvastatin and losartan to candesartan in a primary care setting: 2 years on

AIMS

This short report was designed to provide 2-year follow-up data from a previous study carried out in a primary care practice in the UK to assess the clinical and practical implications of switching to generic drugs.

METHODS

All patients previously switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin or losartan to candesartan were reviewed retrospectively 2 years after the switch. Total serum cholesterol and clinic blood pressure readings were used along with records of cardiovascular events occuring during the 2 year period to assess the clinical impact of the switch.

RESULTS

Of the 69 patients switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin between March and September 2005, 65 are still registered at the practice. Of these, 61 (94%) are still on simvastatin and 58 (89%) on the same dose. There was no significant change in mean total cholesterol over this 2 year period [between 4.04 +/- 0.52 mmol/l prior to the switch and 3.90 +/- 0.63 mmol/l 2 years after the switch (p = 0.06)]. Of the 108 patients switched from losartan to candesartan, 94 are still registered at the practice and taking an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), 92 of these (98%) are still on candesartan and there was a significant reduction in blood pressure 2 years post-switch [between 138/79 +/- 12.9/6.6 prior to the switch and 131/77 +/- 13.1/7.6 mmHg 2 years after the switch (p<<0.05)]. No adverse events attributable to the switch were reported in either group.

CONCLUSION

This small study provides evidence that switching drugs in primary care can be cost effective and safe in the medium term, if care is taken with selection of patients and there is structured follow-up in place.

Switch strategies in the management of hypertension: a cost minimisation analysis of angiotensin receptor blocker based regimen

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Budgetary pressures within health care systems have led many health care providers to consider the switching of patients on long term anti hypertensive medication to agents with the lowest acquisition price. The long term success of this strategy hinges on price differentials remaining stable, an assumption that may not be valid in drug classes where patent expiry times vary. The treatment of hypertension using angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) represents just such a case. The present study, therefore, modelled the 5-year cost consequences of treatment based on losartan, candesartan, valsartan and irbesartan, based on expected patent expiry dates.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed, applying dose-specific blood-pressure lowering and costs to a cohort of uncontrolled mild-moderate hypertensive patients and assessing the anticipated cost of treatment over a 5 year period. A probabilistic approach was adopted to account for between-patient and between-treatment differences.

RESULTS

For both undiscounted and discounted models, a losartan-based regimen represents the least costly option of the four agents tested. Median (IQR) discounted expenditure per patient for each agent was: losartan: pound 506 ( pound 441- pound 650), candesartan: pound 610 ( pound 542- pound 766), valsartan: pound 809 ( pound 796- pound 1078), irbesartan pound 696 ( pound 694- pound 934).

CONCLUSION

Switching hypertensive patients taking ARBs to the agent with the lowest current acquisition cost may yield only transient budgetary savings. Once patent expiry is taken into account, this model suggests that maintaining or switching patients to losartan would yield considerably greater savings over 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of losartan in diabetic nephropathy: a Greek perspective

BACKGROUND

Diabetic nephropathy is the primary cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), which involves substantial economic burden. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the potential effect of losartan on the costs associated with ESRD in patients with diabetic nephropathy in a Greek setting. A secondary aim was to approximate the direct health care cost of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in Greece.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare losartan with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Clinical data were derived from the RENAAL study. All costs were calculated from the perspective of the Greek social insurance system, in 2003 euros. Future costs were discounted at 3%. The time horizon was 3.5 years. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The reduction in the number of ESRD days over 3.5 years in patients treated with losartan reduced ESRD-related costs by 3,056.54 euros, resulting in net cost savings of 1,665.43 euros per patient. Net cost savings increase thereafter, increasing to 2,686.48 euros per patient over a period of 4.0 years. The results were robust under a wide range of plausible assumptions. The weighted mean daily cost of RRT was estimated at 90.97 euros per patient. The total economic burden of RRT for the year 2003 has been estimated at 304.773 million euros.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that treatment of patients with diabetic nephropathy in Greece with losartan is cost-effective, as it leads to important savings for the social insurance system by slowing the progression to ESRD.

An economic assessment of losartan-based versus atenolol-based therapy in patients with hypertension and left-ventricular hypertrophy: results from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study adapted to The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study was a randomized, doubleblind trial that compared the effects of losartan-based treatment with those of atenolol-based treatment on cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related morbidity and mortality in 9193 patients with hypertension and left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Compared with atenolol, losartan reduced the combined risk for CVD-related morbidity and mortality by 13% (P = 0.021), and reduced the risk for stroke by 25% (P = 0.001), with comparable blood pressure control in both trial arms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol in the treatment of stroke from the Dutch health care perspective.

METHODS

Utilization of losartan and atenolol within the trial period (mean, 4.8 years) and an estimation of direct medical costs of stroke for The Netherlands were combined with estimates of reduction in life expectancy through stroke. Medication costs and stroke incidence during 5.5 years of patient follow-up were estimated separately, adjusted for the baseline degree of LVH and Framingham risk score. To estimate lifetime stroke costs, the cumulative incidence of stroke was multiplied by the lifetime direct medical costs attributable to stroke. All costs are in 2006 Dutch prices and discounted following the former (4% costs and effects) and new Dutch guideline (4% costs, 1.5% effects) for conducting pharmacoeconomic analyses.

RESULTS

With 4% discounting, prevention of stroke was associated with a gain of 3.7 life-years. As a consequence, losartan treatment was associated with 0.059 life-year gained (LYG) per patient treated with losartan. Losartan reduced stroke-related costs by 1,076 Euros (US $1,349) per patient. After inclusion of study medication cost, net cost per patient was 51 Euros ($64) higher for losartan than atenolol. The net cost per LYG was 864 Euros ($1083), which is below the Dutch pharmacoeconomic threshold of 20,000 Euros/LYG (~$25,000/LYG) for accepting interventions. The corresponding probability of a cost-effectiveness ratio below this Dutch threshold was 0.95. Discounting money and health following the new Dutch guideline resulted in an even more favorable cost-effectiveness for losartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the present analysis suggest that, in The Netherlands, treatment with losartan compared with atenolol may well be a cost-effective intervention based on the reduced risk for stroke observed in the LIFE trial.

Evaluation of the cost savings and clinical outcomes of switching patients from atorvastatin to simvastatin and losartan to candesartan in a Primary Care setting

This study was carried out in a Primary Care practice in the UK to assess the clinical and practical implications, cost savings and patients' perspective of switching to generic drugs. In the 70 patients switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin there was no significant change in mean total cholesterol 4 months after the switch (4.07 +/- 0.55 mmol/L prior to the switch and 4.10 +/- 0.73 mmol/L post-switch) and only one patient switched back because of side effects. One hundred and fifteen patients were switched from losartan to candesartan. Seven switched back but in those that remained on candesartan there was a small, significant (p = 0.0006), reduction in blood pressure after the switch (138.9/78.7 +/- 13.2/7.0 to 136.3/76.1 +/- 14.7/8.4 mmHg). No adverse events attributable to the switch were reported in either group and the net annualised savings for the year 2005-2006 were 12,715.58 pounds for the statin and 13,374.40 pounds for the antihypertensive switch, respectively.

[Cost-effectiveness of treatment of high blood pressure with losartan in Denmark]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol for the treatment of hypertension, both from the point of view of society and from that of the health care sector, based on data from the LIFE study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The computations are based on a simple decision tree model, where the probability of stroke was obtained from the LIFE study, a double-blind, randomised clinical study of 9,193 patients with hypertensive left ventricle hypertrophy.

RESULTS

The treatment of hypertension with losartan rather than atenolol entails a cost of DKK 19,668 per gained quality-adjusted life year (QALY), when only the cost of the health care sector is taken into account, and DKK 72,564 if all costs to society are included.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that treatment with losartan is cost-effective even when the uncertainty in both data and economic evaluations is taken into account.

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: a key therapeutic strategy to reduce renal and cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes

Diabetes (particularly type 2 diabetes) represents a global health problem of epidemic proportions. Individuals with diabetes are not only more likely to develop hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity, but are also at a significantly higher risk for coronary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and stroke. Angiotensin II plays a key pathophysiological role in the progression of diabetic renal disease, and blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II antagonists has therefore become an important therapeutic strategy to reduce renal and cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. Several studies have demonstrated the effects of angiotensin II antagonists on the reduction of albuminuria and the progression of renal disease from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria. More importantly, several endpoint trials have shown that the antiproteinuric effects of losartan and irbesartan translate into cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits beyond blood pressure lowering, thereby delaying the need for dialysis or kidney transplantation by several years. These and other studies indicate that angiotensin II antagonists not only improve survival and quality of life of patients with diabetic nephropathy, but also have the potential to reduce the substantial healthcare burden associated with managing these patients. ACEi also appear to exert similar beneficial effects in diabetic patients, but whether clinically significant differences in renoprotection or mortality exist between angiotensin II antagonists and ACEi in patients with type 2 diabetes remains to be fully investigated in appropriate head-to-head studies.

A cost-utility analysis of losartan versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy

INTRODUCTION

The LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) study demonstrated a 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke or death) for patients with hypertension and electrocardiographically diagnosed left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) treated with losartan compared with atenolol. Losartan recipients also had a 25% relative risk reduction for stroke compared with atenolol recipients. Incorporating the results found in the LIFE study into an economic model, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing losartan with atenolol in the treatment of 67-year old patients with hypertension and LVH.

METHODS

A Markov state transition model, based on published results of the LIFE trial (mean follow-up of 4.8 years), was utilised to extrapolate the outcomes observed in this trial to the patients' lifetime. Utility estimates for the associated health states were obtained from various published sources. Lifetime treatment costs were calculated adopting a societal perspective. Both costs and benefits were discounted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The estimated ICER for losartan versus atenolol was 1337 Canadian dollars per QALY gained (1 Canadian dollar =0.75 US dollars, 2002 values). This ICER was robust to extensive sensitivity analysis, demonstrating a 95% probability that the ICER would be <20,000 Canadian dollars per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

From a Canadian societal perspective, losartan appears to be a cost-effective alternative to atenolol in patients with hypertension and LVH. The estimated ICERs, including the sensitivity analyses, were within the range of cost-effectiveness ratios for various currently funded interventions and drugs in developed countries.

The impact of losartan on the lifetime incidence of end-stage renal disease and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

INTRODUCTION

The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy, treatment with losartan plus conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) reduced the relative risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) by 29% versus placebo over the time span of the study (mean patient follow-up of 3.4 years). The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared with placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs (from a US healthcare system perspective).

METHODS

To estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, we used a competing risks method to account for the risk of death without ESRD. We estimated the cost (US dollars, year 2002 values) associated with ESRD by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD, the cost of losartan study therapy and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3% per annum.

RESULTS

We projected a lower lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in cost associated with ESRD of US dollars 31,803 per patient and a gain of 0.99 life-years per patient (0.70 discounted). After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a lifetime net saving of US dollars 24,632 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with losartan plus CT in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD and is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD and associated costs, and increased survival, versus placebo.

Losartan reduces the costs of diabetic end-stage renal disease: an Asian perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate losartan and conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) compared with CT alone on the cost associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan.

METHODS

Reduction of end-points in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with the angiotensin II antagonist losartan (RENAAL) was a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the renal protective effects of losartan on a background of CT in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The primary composite end-point was a doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD or death. Data on the duration of ESRD for the Asian subgroup of patients enrolled in RENAAL were used to estimate the economic benefits of slowing the progression of nephropathy. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the number of days each patient experienced ESRD with the average daily cost of dialysis from the third-party payer perspective in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. Total cost, converted to US dollars, was the sum of ESRD and losartan costs.

RESULTS

Losartan plus CT reduced the number of days with ESRD by 37.9 per patient over 3.5 years compared with CT alone. This reduction in ESRD days resulted in a decrease in the cost associated with ESRD, which ranges from $910 to $4346 per patient over 3.5 years across the six countries or regions. After accounting for the cost of losartan, the reduction in ESRD days resulted in net savings in each of the six countries or regions, ranging from $55 to $515 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy not only reduced the incidence of ESRD among Asian patients, but resulted in direct medical cost savings in countries or regions representing Asia.

Cost-effectiveness of losartan-based therapy in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: a UK-based economic evaluation of the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study

The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrated the clinical benefit of losartan-based therapy in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), mainly due to a highly significant 25% reduction in the relative risk of stroke compared with an atenolol-based regimen, for a similar reduction in blood pressure. The aim of this economic evaluation was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol from a UK national health system perspective. Quality-adjusted survival and direct medical costs were modelled beyond the trial using the within-trial incidence of stroke. Survival with stroke, study medication use and quality of life by stroke status were taken directly from the LIFE trial. The LIFE data were supplemented with UK data on lifetime direct medical costs of stroke and life expectancy in individuals without stroke. No additional stroke events or use of study treatment were assumed beyond the trial. Costs and benefits were discounted using current UK Treasury rates. In the base-case analysis, the reduction in stroke-related costs (by 968 sterling pound) offset 86% of the increase in study medication costs (1128 sterling pound) among losartan-treated patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for losartan versus atenolol in hypertensive patients with LVH was 2130 sterling pound per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (3195 Euro/QALY), and this increased to 11,352 sterling pound per QALY gained (16,450 Euro/QALY) when the costs of stroke beyond the first 5 years were excluded. Thus, the clinical benefit of losartan was achieved at a cost well within reported thresholds for cost-effectiveness.

Cost effectiveness of losartan in patients with hypertension and LVH: an economic evaluation for Sweden of the LIFE trial

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol from a Swedish national health system perspective.

DESIGN

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE) was a double-masked, randomized trial of losartan versus atenolol in 9193 patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) ascertained by electrocardiography. Losartan reduced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke by 13% (P = 0.021) and reduced the risk of stroke by 25% (P = 0.001), despite a comparable degree of blood pressure control.

METHODS

Life years gained was estimated by combining the absolute risk reduction in stroke with the life years gained by preventing stroke. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was estimated by combining the absolute risk reduction in stroke with the QALYs gained by preventing stroke. QALYs were estimated by weighting life years by health-related quality of life (QoL), as measured with visual analogue scale (VAS) data collected in the trial. Net costs were defined as the total of study medication cost, stroke-related costs, and costs of increased survival. Costs are in 2003 Swedish prices. All costs and effects were discounted at a 3% annual rate.

RESULTS

Prevention of a stroke resulted in a gain of 5.7 life years and 4.3 QALYs. As a consequence, losartan treatment resulted in a per patient increase of 0.092 life years [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.038, 0.146] and 0.069 QALYs (95% CI: 0.028, 0.109) as compared with atenolol treatment. Losartan reduced direct stroke-related cost per patient by 1141 euros due to a lower cumulative incidence of stroke for losartan at 5.5 years (4.9%) as compared with atenolol (6.5%) (95% CI of difference: 0.7, 2.5). The reduction in stroke-related cost offset 80% of the added cost of losartan drug therapy. After inclusion of study medication cost, net cost per patient was 289 euros higher for losartan than atenolol. The net cost per QALY gained for losartan was 4188 euros (37,813 SEK), which is well within common Swedish benchmark upper values (200-500,000 SEK) for accepted cost-effective interventions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results from the LIFE trial, treatment with losartan compared with atenolol, in hypertensive patients with LVH, is a cost-effective intervention.

The impact of losartan on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and costs in Mexico

BACKGROUND

The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Type 2 Diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that treatment with losartan reduced the risk of ESRD by 29% among hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared to placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs from a third-party payer perspective in Mexico.

METHODS

A competing risks method was used to estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, while accounting for the risk of death without ESRD. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD from the three main public institutions in Mexico, the lifetime cost of losartan therapy, and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD.

RESULTS

The projected lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients was lower (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in ESRD-related cost of M dollar 49,737 per patient and a discounted gain of 0.697 life years per patient. After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a net savings of M dollar 24,073 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy not only reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD but is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD, increased survival, and overall cost savings to public institutions in Mexico.

Continuum of Renoprotection with Losartan at All Stages of Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the RENAAL Trial Results

Renin angiotensin system inhibitor therapy is seldom offered to individuals who have diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease because of safety concerns. In this post hoc, secondary analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial, angiotensin antagonism risk/benefit profile was assessed in 1513 individuals with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Incidence of ESRD, hospitalizations for heart failure, withdrawals for adverse events, and proteinuria during losartan or conventional treatment were compared within three tertiles of baseline serum creatinine concentration (highest, 2.1 to 3.6 mg/dl; middle, 1.6 to 2.0 mg/dl; lowest, 0.9 to 1.6 mg/dl). Losartan decreased the risk of ESRD by 24.6, 26.3, and 35.3% in highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, respectively. For every 100 patients with serum creatinine >2.0, 1.6 to 2.0, or <1.6 mg/dl, respectively, 4 yr of losartan therapy was estimated to save 18.9, 8.4, and 2.9 ESRD events and US$1,502,855, US$1,021,770, and US$528,591 costs for renal replacement therapy. Losartan also decreased the hospitalizations for heart failure by 50.2 and 45.1, in the highest and middle tertile, respectively. Withdrawals for adverse events other than heart failure were comparable between tertiles and treatment groups. Proteinuria decreased more on losartan than on placebo in all tertiles (highest, 24 versus -8%; middle, 16 versus -8%; lowest, 15 versus -10%). In proteinuric individuals with type 2 diabetes, losartan therapy reduced ESRD and hospitalizations for heart failure and was well tolerated at all levels of renal function. Angiotensin II antagonism is a suitable and well-tolerated treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes even with GFR levels approaching renal replacement therapy.

The cost-effectiveness of losartan in type 2 diabetics with nephropathy in Switzerland--an analysis of the RENAAL study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and incidence of diabetic nephropathy with endstage renal disease (ESRD) have increased globally over recent decades. Diabetic nephropathy with ESRD for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) now has to be recognized as a growing public health problem. Several studies have found that angiotensin-II receptor antagonists have a renoprotective effect in type 2 diabetics with diabetic nephropathy, independently of their antihypertensive effects. These studies have shown a prevention of the progression of nephropathy to ESRD, or a slowing of that progression. The RENAAL study demonstrated the clinical benefits of losartan in patients with DM type 2 and advanced diabetic nephropathy.

AIM

The aim of this cost-effectiveness analysis of the RENAAL study was to evaluate the effect of losartan compared to a placebo from a Swiss third party payer perspective.

METHODS

Using a decision analytic model, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness for losartan on the basis of the RENAAL study. A follow-up period of 3.5 years was used. Effectiveness was defined as the number of ESRD days saved. We valued haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation. A weighted mean value was calculated for the daily costs of an ESRD (CHF 215.05). In the case of renal transplantation follow-on costs, resource utilization was determined through a telephone-based interview with 5 of the 6 Swiss transplantation centres. Expert consensus methodology was used to determine the proportion of health care resource utilization in type 2 diabetics. The percentage of patients receiving each of the 3 treatment alternatives was derived from a cross-sectional national study conceived for this purpose. The daily costs for haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis were derived from figures provided by insurers. The costs of treatment with losartan were calculated on the basis of an average daily dose of losartan over a period of 3.5 years.

RESULTS

Over a period of 3.5 years, losartan significantly reduced the number of ESRD days of type 2 diabetics with nephropathy by an average of 33.6 days (95% CI: 10.9, 56.3) compared to the placebo. This reduction in the number of ESRD days resulted in ESRD-associated cost savings of CHF 7,226 per patient over a period of 3.5 years (the ESRD-associated costs savings increased to CHF 10,086 per patient after 4 years). If the average costs per patient for treatment with losartan for the same period (CHF 3,142) are subtracted from the CHF 7,226 then the reduction in ESRD days yields net cost savings of CHF 4,084 per patient over 3.5 years. The univariate sensitivity analyses for the variables ESRD daily costs and percentage distribution of the 3 treatment modalities always yielded net cost savings.

DISCUSSION

This evaluation revealed net cost savings of CHF 4,084 (F 2,687) for patients with diabetic nephropathy and type 2 diabetes when given 50 to 100 mg losartan once daily over a period of 3.5 years compared to placebo. The net cost savings that administration of losartan yielded are of considerable importance given that the annual costs of diabetic nephropathy with ESRD in type 2 diabetics in Switzerland are approximately CHF 46 million. On the basis of the scientific evidence currently available, the use of losartan to prevent the advance of diabetic nephropathy is worthwhile from both a clinical and economic perspective.

Losartan and the United States costs of end-stage renal disease by baseline albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study provided the opportunity to estimate costs associated with ESRD by baseline albuminuria from a United States perspective.

METHODS

Costs for ESRD in patients with diabetes were estimated by baseline albuminuria using the U.S. Renal Data System by using the number of days each patient experienced ESRD and the daily estimated U.S. cost of ESRD.

RESULTS

The losartan-based antihypertensive therapy group experienced a 28.6% (P=0.002) reduction in the risk of the development of ESRD compared with placebo-based conventional antihypertensive therapy. The previously estimated annual ESRD-related cost saving in the losartan group was 5,144 dollars (95% CI 1,701-8,586 dollars, P=0.003) at 3.5 years. With the cost of losartan, the net savings in the losartan group was estimated at 3,522 dollars (143-6,900 dollars, P=0.041) by 3.5 years. More ESRD-free days were observed and reduced ESRD costs estimated with losartan-based treatment over all levels of baseline albuminuria.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy in the RENAAL study not only reduces the incidence of ESRD, but is also estimated from a U.S. perspective to result in substantial cost savings over the 3.5-year duration of the trial across all levels of baseline albuminuria.

Cost-Effectiveness of Losartan Versus Atenolol in Treating Hypertension—An Analysis of the LIFE Study from a Swiss Perspective

AIMS

To determine the economic benefit of losartan versus atenolol in patients with essential hypertension from the perspective of the Swiss healthcare system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertension was analyzed by applying the results of the LIFE study to the Swiss healthcare system using a decision analysis framework. The cost-effectiveness shows the losartan cohort to provide an additional life expectancy of 0.05 years per patient compared to the atenolol cohort, over a mean follow-up period of 4.8 years. Losartan therapy in hypertensive patients produced net cost savings of CHF 24 per patient and per 4.8 years compared to atenolol from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. This result was robust after varying costs of medication, stroke, myocardial infarction and life expectancy.

CONCLUSION

The use of a losartan-based regimen in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy in Switzerland is net cost-saving compared with a atenolol-based regimen.

Pharmacoeconomic aspects of losartan treatment to delay progression of renal disease in patients with Type 2 diabetes

There is growing evidence from clinical trials that losartan (Cozaar, Merck & Co., Inc.) and other angiotensin (A)-II-receptor antagonists have beneficial effects on the progression of renal disease among Type 2 diabetic patients beyond the benefits derived from the effect of blood-pressure lowering alone [corrected]. Comparators used is the studies were not angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors but typically conventional hypertensive therapy plus placebo, placebo alone and in one case, amlodipine. These trials have reported reductions in progression to end stage renal disease (ESRD) (losartan and irbesartan) and to nephropathy (irbesartan). An important pharmacoeconomic question is whether potential cost-savings on reduced progression to ESRD and nephropathy outweigh the extra costs of A-II-antagonist treatment. This paper will review the published economic studies for A-II-receptor antagonists and their pharmacoeconomic implications. In particular, potential pharmacoeconomic implications and related methodological aspects of the recent RENAAL trial for losartan are considered.

The potential economic consequences of cognitive improvement with losartan

In a clinical trial, treatment of mild-moderate hypertensive patients with losartan (50 mg) increased Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores by 4 points from baseline over a 26-month period, compared with a 1-point increase in patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg). This study explores the potential economic consequences of this improvement in cognitive function in a population of elderly hypertensive patients in Sweden. Resource use and MMSE data for 437 hypertensive, non-demented subjects aged 75 years and above, were taken from a population-based study in Sweden. MMSE scores were strongly related with costs of care due to higher utilization of home help and special living arrangements in patients with low scores. A 1-point difference in MMSE was associated with a difference in the annual cost of care of approximately 5700 Swedish kronor (SEK). Over 26 months, the potential cost savings from the 4-point improvement observed with losartan was estimated to be between 24700 and 43700 SEK. This can be compared with the acquisition cost of losartan; approximately 5700 SEK over the study period. Thus, an improvement in cognitive function of the magnitude documented in the study of losartan vs hydrochlorothiazide, may translate into economic benefits beyond those expected in terms of blood pressure control.

Losartan reduces the costs associated with diabetic end-stage renal disease: the RENAAL study economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the within-trial effect of losartan and conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) compared with placebo and CT on the economic cost associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Reduction of End Points in Type 2 Diabetes With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study was a multinational double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to evaluate the renal protective effects of losartan on a background of CT (excluding ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor agonists [AIIAs]) in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The primary composite end point was doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD, or death. Data on the duration of ESRD were used to estimate the economic benefits of slowing the progression of nephropathy. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the days each patient experienced ESRD with the cost of ESRD over time. The cost of ESRD for individuals with diabetes was estimated using data from the U.S. Renal Data System. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD and the cost of study therapy. RESULTS-We estimated that losartan and CT compared with placebo and CT reduced the number of days with ESRD by 33.6 per patient over 3.5 years (P = 0.004, 95% CI 10.9-56.3). This reduction in ESRD days resulted in a decrease in cost associated with ESRD of 5144 US dollars per patient (P = 0.003, 95% CI 1701 to 8587 US dollars). After accounting for the cost of losartan, the reduction in ESRD days resulted in a net savings of 3522 US dollars per patient over 3.5 years (P = 0.041, 143 to 6900 US dollars).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy not only reduced the incidence of ESRD, but also resulted in substantial cost savings.

An economic evaluation of Losartan therapy in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy: an analysis of the RENAAL study adapted to France

BACKGROUND

The RENAAL study enrolled 1,513 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy defined by the presence of proteinuria (urinary albumin: creatinine ratio 300 mg/g or proteinuria > 500 mg per day). Compared to placebo, losartan therapy reduced by 16% (p=0.02) the risk of a composite endpoint (doubling of baseline serum creatinine level, end stage renal disease, or death) and by 28% (p=0.002) the risk of progression to end stage renal disease (ESRD).

METHODS

The objective of this study was to compare, using French economic data, the additional cost of losartan therapy with the savings in cost generated by a decrease in the number of end stage renal disease days. Prospectively collected health care resource utilization were used (N(losartan)=751, N(placebo)=762). The follow-up period was 4 years.

RESULTS

The mean cumulative cost of losartan over 4 years was 1,603 euros per patient. The reduction in the number of ESRD days over 4 years in patients treated with losartan significantly decreased costs associated with ESRD by 7,438 euros per patient (CI 95%: 3,029 euros - 11,847 euros, p=0.001). Compared to the placebo group, the average cost per patient over 4 years in the losartan group was lower by 5,834 euros (CI 95%: 1,407 euros - 10,301 euros, p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In addition to the medical benefit, this analysis demonstrated the economic relevance of treatment with losartan in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

Losartan reduces the burden and cost of ESRD: public health implications from the RENAAL study for the European Union

Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in most industrialized countries in Europe. The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) Study evaluated the renal protective effects of losartan versus placebo on a background of non-ACE-I/non-AIIA conventional antihypertensive therapy in 1513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Losartan reduced the incidence of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), or death by 16% (P=0.022) and reduced the risk of progression to ESRD, defined as the initiation of dialysis or transplantation, by 29% (P=0.002). We set out to estimate the potential effect of losartan on the burden and costs associated with ESRD over 3.5 years in the European Union (EU). The risk reduction in new cases of ESRD was calculated by combining type 2 diabetes population estimates for the EU with the percent absolute risk reduction of ESRD in patients treated with losartan as observed in RENAAL. The number of days each patient experienced ESRD was defined as the length of time from onset of ESRD until the minimum of death or 3.5 years. ESRD-free person-years avoided with losartan treatment were calculated by combining the population estimate with the ESRD days avoided divided by number of days in a year. ESRD costs from Germany were used to approximate the potential cost savings from reduced time with ESRD and fewer ESRD cases on a EU wide basis. There are approximately 700,000 diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients with proteinuria (urine albumin/creatinine >or=300 mg/g) in the EU. The addition of losartan to the treatment regimen of these patients is expected to lead to a reduction of 44,100 cases of ESRD, 64,400 fewer person-years with ESRD, and reduce ESRD-related costs by euro 2.6 billion over 3.5 years based on RENAAL data. Treatment with losartan not only reduced the incidence of ESRD, but also can result in substantial cost savings in the European Union.

The role of losartan in cost-effective hypertension control

Despite recent guidelines emphasising the need for aggressive treatment in patients with elevated blood pressure, the control of hypertension in Europe and the USA is poor, imposing a considerable burden in terms of patient morbidity and mortality, and associated healthcare costs. A major factor contributing to the suboptimal control of hypertension is the failure of patients to adhere to their prescribed therapy. Drug side-effects are an important cause of non-compliance and prescribing a well-tolerated agent that promotes good compliance is therefore the key to the cost-effective management of hypertension. Several studies have demonstrated that patients are more likely to remain on therapy with the angiotensin II antagonist losartan than other antihypertensives. Although the acquisition costs of new antihypertensives such as losartan are greater than for older drugs, such costs represent only a small proportion of the total cost of prescribing antihypertensive therapy. When accessory costs are also considered, the total cost of care with newer antihypertensives is comparable with those for diuretics. The costs involved if therapy has to be switched due to unacceptable side-effects also need to be taken into account when assessing relative cost effectiveness. Furthermore, savings may accrue from the non-haemodynamic benefits of losartan, such as improved cognitive function and renal protection. Further studies will increase awareness of the true cost effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs.

The cost-effectiveness of losartan versus captopril in patients with symptomatic heart failure

The Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study recently found that in patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of </=0.40, losartan compared to captopril improved survival with better tolerability. The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of losartan versus captopril based on the results of the Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study. The Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study was a multinational, double-blind, randomized 48-week study comparing the safety and efficacy of losartan to captopril in angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor-naive patients >/=65 years with symptomatic heart failure. Data on health care resource utilization were collected as part of the trial. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the lifetime benefits of treatment and the associated costs. We observed no differences between treatments in the number of hospitalizations, hospital days, and emergency room visits per patient over the trial period. We estimated the total cost of losartan to be USD 54 (95% CI: USD -1,717, USD 1,755) less per patient than captopril over this time frame. We also estimated that over the projected remaining lifetime of the study population, losartan compared to captopril would increase survival by 0.20 years (undiscounted) at an average cost of USD 769 (discounted) more per patient. This cost increase translated into a cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 4,047 per year of life gained for losartan relative to captopril. In patients with symptomatic heart failure, losartan compared to captopril increased survival with better tolerability at a cost well within the range accepted as cost-effective.

[Current therapy: losartan]

The authors present losartan, an angiotensin II receptor inhibitor with respect to its clinical interest and its practical and economical aspects.