Economic evaluation of a single-pill triple antihypertensive therapy with valsartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide against its dual components

Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial treatment with single-pill combination antihypertensive medications

Hypertension guidelines recommend initiating treatment with single pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive medications, but SPCs are used by only one-third of treated hypertensive US adults. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with SPC dual antihypertensive medications compared with usual care monotherapy in hypertensive US adults.The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model simulated initial SPC dual therapy (two half-standard doses in a single pill) compared with initial usual care monotherapy (half-standard dose when baseline systolic BP < 20 mmHg above goal and one standard dose when ≥20 mmHg above goal). Secondary analyses examined equivalent dose monotherapy (one standard dose) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (two half-standard doses). The primary outcomes were direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 10 years from a US healthcare sector perspective.At 10 years, initial dual drug SPC was projected to yield 0.028 (95%UI 0.008 to 0.051) more QALYs at no greater cost ($73, 95%UI -$1 983 to $1 629) than usual care monotherapy. In secondary analysis, SPC dual therapy was cost-effective vs. equivalent dose monotherapy (ICER $8 000/QALY gained) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (ICER $57 000/QALY gained). At average drug prices, initiating antihypertensive treatment with SPC dual therapy is more effective at no greater cost than usual care initial monotherapy and has the potential to improve BP control rates and reduce the burden of CVD in the US.

Cost-effectiveness of ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy for high blood pressure

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a quadpill containing irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg and bisoprolol 2.5 mg in comparison with irbesartan 150 mg for people with hypertension who are either untreated or receiving monotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a within-trial and modelled economic evaluation of the Quadruple UltrA-low-dose tReaTment for hypErTension trial. The analysis was preplanned, and medications and health service use captured during the trial. The main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cost per mm Hg systolic blood pressure (BP) reduction at 3 months, and modelled cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over a lifetime.

RESULTS

The within-trial analysis showed no clear difference in cost per mm Hg BP lowering between randomised treatments at 3 months ($A10 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) $A -18 to $A37) per mm Hg per person) for quadpill versus monotherapy. The modelled cost-utility over a lifetime projected a mean incremental cost of $A265 (95% UI $A166 to $A357) and a mean 0.02 QALYs gained (95% UI 0.01 to 0.03) per person with quadpill therapy compared with monotherapy. Quadpill therapy was cost-effective in the base case (ICER of $A14 006 per QALY), and the result was sensitive to the quadpill cost in one-way sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Quadpill in comparison with monotherapy is comparably cost-effective for short-term BP lowering. In the long-term, quadpill therapy is likely to be cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTRN12616001144404.

Does a Standard Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Exist? The Case of Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review the use of cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold for evaluating pharmacological interventions in Greece.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted between January 2009 and June 2022. The data of selected studies were extracted using a relevant form and consequently were synthesized. Qualitative variables were presented with relative frequencies (%) and quantitative variables with median and interquartile range (IQR).

RESULTS

From the 302 identified studies, 83 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized to oncology (26.5%) and a nononcology related (73.5%) based on drug treatment. The most frequently reported outcome associated with CE threshold was the "per quality-adjusted life-year gained." A total of 32.5% of the studies with a reported threshold did not specify the origin of the threshold. From the rest of studies, the vast majority (92.8%) adopted thresholds equal to 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, whereas the rest similar to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The median CE threshold was differentiated between oncology (€51 000 [IQR €50 000-€60 000]) and nononcology studies (€34 000 [IQR €30 000-€36 000]; P < .001). In both type of studies, the median CE thresholds were not statistically significantly different among GDP, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and not specified approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligned with other countries where there is no standard CE threshold to promote efficient use of healthcare resources, the most prominent practice in Greece was found to be that of 1 to 3 times the GDP per capita irrespective of type of treatment or outcome studied.

Cost Effectiveness of the First-in-Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to model the potential long-term disease progression and pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model with five health states was constructed to simulate the incidence of acute cardiovascular events and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with sacubitril/valsartan compared with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Multivariable risk regression models derived from China-PAR data accompanied by hazard ratios were used to transform the dual mechanism of sacubitril/valsartan to lower blood pressure and left ventricular mass index into long-term fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular risks. Efficacy data were calculated using a network meta-analysis integrated by the results of clinical trials. Healthcare costs were determined from a real-world study and published literature, supplemented by expert opinion. Utilities were derived from literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% annually, and prices corresponded to 2021. Model validation, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results.

RESULTS

For simulated patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rates of myocardial infarction by 6.67% and 6.39%, stroke by 9.38% and 8.98%, and heart failure hospitalization by 9.92% and 9.62% relative to allisartan isoproxil and valsartan, respectively. It was also associated with gains in life expectancy among hypertensive individuals of 0.362-0.382 years. Eventually, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥59,272 (US$9187) for sacubitril/valsartan, CN¥54,783 (US$8492) for allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥56,714 (US$8791) for valsartan; total QALYs were 11.38, 11.24, and 11.25, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥31,805/QALY (US$4930/QALY) compared with allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥19,247/QALY (US$2983/QALY) compared with valsartan, both of which are below the one time per-capita GDP of CN¥80,976/QALY (US$12,551/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analysis scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan compares favorably with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its higher efficacy resulting in fewer cardiovascular events and ultimately less related mortality over time. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China and may provide reference for facilitating more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in such low- and middle-income countries.

Assessing the Consequences of External Reference Pricing for Global Access to Medicines and Innovation: Economic Analysis and Policy Implications

Background: External reference pricing (ERP) is used to set pharmaceutical prices to improve affordability, but its application may have negative consequences on patient access—thus, equity—across countries and on global innovation. With the United States contemplating ERP, negative effects could be magnified. Our aim: identify and quantify some major consequences of ERP. Research design, methods: Besides relying on databases and ERP modelling, we developed a heart failure case study. 4-step approach: 1) review ERP policies; 2) establish worldwide “price corridor”; 3) quantify patient access and health outcomes impact by ERP; 4) estimate ERP impact on innovation.

Results: Our ERP referencing analysis highlights its perverse effects especially in lower-income countries. As counterstrategies to protect their revenues, manufacturers often implement tight list price corridors or launch avoidance/delays. Consequences include suboptimal patient access—hence, worse outcomes—illustrated by our case study: 500,000 + QALYs health loss. Additionally, the ensuing revenue reduction would likely cause innovation loss by one additional medicine that would have benefitted future patients.

Conclusion: This research provides key insights on potential unintentional consequences of medicine price setting by ERP worldwide and under a new proposal for the United States. Our results can inform stakeholder discussions to improve patient access to innovative medicines globally.

Starting Antihypertensive Drug Treatment With Combination Therapy: Controversies in Hypertension - Con Side of the Argument

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antihypertensive triple combination therapy among patients enrolled in a Medicare advantage plan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of single pill fixed dose triple combination therapy vs. free triple combination therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with hypertension.

METHODS

A Markov model with a five year cycle was constructed. Two decision models incorporating strict and more relaxed adherence definitions estimated quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs for single pill fixed triple combination therapy vs. free-drug combination therapy.

RESULTS

When the strict adherence measurement criteria were applied, the total QALYs loss and cost/patient were 6.38 QALYs, $486,026.20 for the single pill triple combination therapy and 8.64 QALYs, $406,405.26 for the free combination therapy. ICER for single pill combination therapy compared to free combination therapy was 33,826.46/QALY. When the relaxed adherence measurement criteria were applied, the total QALYs loss and cost/patient were 8.09 QALYs, $493,404.26 for the single pill triple combination therapy and 8.76 QALYs, $436,415.14 for the free combination therapy. ICER for single pill combination compared with free combination therapy was 84,932.26.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that single pill triple combination therapy was cost-effective in comparison with free combination therapy under a willingness to pay threshold of 50,000 when the strict adherence measurement criteria was applied.

A global perspective on the costs of hypertension: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension, particularly untreated, leads to serious complications and contributes to high costs incurred by the whole society. The aim of the review was to carry out a social and economic comparison of various categories of hypertension costs from different countries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was a systematic review. PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases were searched. Hypertension costs were analyzed in 8 cost categories. An attempt was made to determine whether selected economic and social factors (such as HDI or GDP) influenced hypertension costs.

RESULTS

The review included data from 15 countries: Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, China, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Poland, Spain, USA, Vietnam and Zimbabwe. The papers included in the review were heterogeneous with respect to cost categories, which made comparisons difficult. The average total costs of hypertension for all the studied countries, calculated per person, amounted to 630.14 Int$, direct costs - 1,497.36 Int$, and indirect costs - 282.34 Int$. The ranking of countries by costs and by selected economic and social indices points at the possible relationship between these indices and hypertension costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of hypertension calculated per country reached the region of several dozen billion Int$. Other sources usually showed lower costs than those presented in this review. This indicates a growth in costs from year to year and the future increasing burden on society. Globally uniform cost terminology and cost calculation standards need to be developed. That would facilitate making more informed decisions regarding fund allocation in hypertension management schemes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the CELESTIAL trial for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cabozantinib showed improved survival compared with placebo but comes at a price. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective of the USA, UK and China.

METHODS

We developed Markov models to simulate the patients pre-treated with first-line sorafenib following the CELESTIAL trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the treatment with cabozantinib or best supportive care. The list price for drugs was acquired from the Red Book, the British National Formulary, West China hospital and reported literature. Adverse events, utilities weights, and transition likelihood between states were sourced from the published randomized phase III trial. A willing-to-pay threshold was set $150 000/QALY in the USA, $70 671/QALY (£50 000/QALY) in the UK and $26 481/QALY (3x GDP per capita) in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to test the models' uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment with cabozantinib increased effectiveness by 0.13 QALYs, resulting in an ICER vs best supportive care of $833 497/QALY in the USA, $304 177/QALY in the UK and $156 437/QALY in China. The models were most sensitive to assumptions about transitions to progression with both cabozantinib and best supportive care, the utility associated with being progression free. These results were robust across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses, including deterministic and probabilistic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib at its current cost would not be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective in the USA, UK or China. Substantial discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive medication versus usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: a within-trial and modelled economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure incurs a major health and economic burden, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The Triple Pill versus Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial showed a greater reduction in blood pressure in patients using fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive therapy (consisting of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone) than in those receiving usual care in Sri Lanka. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the triple-pill strategy.

METHODS

We did a within-trial (6-month) and modelled (10-year) economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial, using the health system perspective. Health-care costs, reported in 2017 US dollars, were determined from trial records and published literature. A discrete-time simulation model was developed, extrapolating trial findings of reduced systolic blood pressure to 10-year health-care costs, cardiovascular disease events, and mortality. The primary outcomes were the proportion of people reaching blood pressure targets (at 6 months from baseline) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted (at 10 years from baseline). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to estimate the cost per additional participant achieving target blood pressure at 6 months and cost per DALY averted over 10 years.

FINDINGS

The triple-pill strategy, compared with usual care, cost an additional US$9·63 (95% CI 5·29 to 13·97) per person in the within-trial analysis and $347·75 (285·55 to 412·54) per person in the modelled analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $7·93 (95% CI 6·59 to 11·84) per participant reaching blood pressure targets at 6 months and $2842·79 (-28·67 to 5714·24) per DALY averted over a 10-year period.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with usual care, the triple-pill strategy is cost-effective for patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Scaled up investment in the triple pill for hypertension management in Sri Lanka should be supported to address the high population burden of cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Formulations of Amlodipine: A Review

Amlodipine (AD) is a calcium channel blocker that is mainly used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. However, latest findings have revealed that its efficacy is not only limited to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases as it has shown to possess antioxidant activity and plays an important role in apoptosis. Therefore, it is also employed in the treatment of cerebrovascular stroke, neurodegenerative diseases, leukemia, breast cancer, and so forth either alone or in combination with other drugs. AD is a photosensitive drug and requires protection from light. A number of workers have tried to formulate various conventional and nonconventional dosage forms of AD. This review highlights all the formulations that have been developed to achieve maximum stability with the desired therapeutic action for the delivery of AD such as fast dissolving tablets, floating tablets, layered tablets, single-pill combinations, capsules, oral and transdermal films, suspensions, emulsions, mucoadhesive microspheres, gels, transdermal patches, and liposomal formulations.