Cost-effectiveness of candesartan versus losartan in the primary preventive treatment of hypertension

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-pill combination of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide to the free equivalent combination in patients with hypertension from an Italian national health system perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide versus its free equivalent combination (FEC) in adults with hypertension in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and an Italian healthcare payer's perspective. In the model, the additional effect of the SPC on blood pressure level compared with the FEC was translated into a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and CKD, which was modeled via Framingham risk algorithms. Difference in persistence rates of SPC and FEC were modeled via discontinuation rates.

RESULTS

A perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is associated with lower cost and better health outcomes compared to its FEC. Over a lifetime horizon, it is associated with a 0.050 QALY gain and cost savings of €376, resulting from lower cardiovascular event rates. In the alternative scenario, where different approach for modeling impact of adherence was considered, incremental gain of 0.069 QALY and savings of €1,004 were observed. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses, indicating that use of this SPC is a cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is a cost-saving treatment option for hypertension in Italy, compared to its FEC.

Do Economic Evaluations in Primary Care Prevention and the Management of Hypertension Conform to Good Practice Guidelines? A Systematic Review

Background: Results of previous research have identified the need for further investigation into the compliance with good practice guidelines for current decision-analytic modeling (DAM). Objective: To identify the extent to which recent model-based economic evaluations of interventions focused on lowering the blood pressure (BP) of patients with hypertension conform to published guidelines for DAM in health care using a five-dimension framework developed to assess compliance to DAM guidelines. Methods: A systematic review of English language articles was undertaken to identify published model-based economic evaluations that examined interventions aimed at lowering BP. The review covered the period January 2000 to March 2015 and included the following electronic bibliographic databases: EMBASE and Medline via Ovid interface and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s (CRD) NHS-EED. Data were extracted based on different components of good practice across five dimensions utilizing a framework to assess compliance to DAM guidelines. Results: Thirteen articles were included in this review. The review found limited compliance to good practice DAM guidelines, which was most frequently justified by the lack of data. Conclusions: The assessment of structural uncertainty cannot yet be considered common practice in primary prevention and management of hypertension, and researchers seem to face difficulties with identifying sources of structural uncertainty and then handling them correctly. Additional guidelines are needed to aid researchers in identifying and managing sources of potential structural uncertainty. Adherence to guidelines is not always possible and it does pose challenges, in particular when there are limitations due to data availability that restrict, for example, a validation process.

High Risk versus Proportional Benefit: Modelling Equitable Strategies in Cardiovascular Prevention

OBJECTIVE

To examine the performances of an alternative strategy to decide initiating BP-lowering drugs called Proportional Benefit (PB). It selects candidates addressing the inequity induced by the high-risk approach since it distributes the gains proportionally to the burden of disease by genders and ages.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Mild hypertensives from a Realistic Virtual Population by genders and 10-year age classes (range 35-64 years) received simulated treatment over 10 years according to the PB strategy or the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines (ESH/ESC). Primary outcomes were the relative life-year gain (life-years gained-to-years of potential life lost ratio) and the number needed to treat to gain a life-year. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of changes introduced by the ESH/ESC guidelines appeared in 2013 on these outcomes.

RESULTS

The 2007 ESH/ESC relative life-year gains by ages were 2%; 10%; 14% in men, and 0%; 2%; 11% in women, this gradient being abolished by the PB (relative gain in all categories = 10%), while preserving the same overall gain in life-years. The redistribution of benefits improved the profile of residual events in younger individuals compared to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. The PB strategy was more efficient (NNT = 131) than the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines, whatever the level of evidence of the scenario adopted (NNT = 139 and NNT = 179 with the evidence-based scenario and the opinion-based scenario, respectively), although the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines remained the most efficient strategy (NNT = 114).

CONCLUSION

The Proportional Benefit strategy provides the first response ever proposed against the inequity of resource use when treating highest risk people. It occupies an intermediate position with regards to the efficiency expected from the application of historical and current ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. Our approach allows adapting recommendations to the risk and resources of a particular country.