Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: Antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost-effective compared to an atenolol-based regimen

Copyright © 2010 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material must be obtained from the Publisher.Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of an amlodipine-based strategy and an atenolol-based strategy in the treatment of hypertension in the UK and Sweden. Design: A prospective, randomised trial complemented with a Markov model to assess long-term costs and health effects. Setting: Primary care. Patients: Patients with moderate hypertension and three or more additional risk factors. Interventions: Amlodipine 5–10 mg with perindopril 4–8 mg added as needed or atenolol 50–100 mg with bendroflumethiazide 1.25–2.5 mg and potassium added as needed Main outcome measures: Cost per cardiovascular event and procedure avoided, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: In the UK, the cost to avoid one cardiovascular event or procedure would be €18 965, and the cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-year would be €21 875. The corresponding figures for Sweden were €13 210 and €16 856. Conclusions: Compared with the thresholds applied by NICE and in the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare’s Guidelines for Cardiac Care, an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective for the treatment of hypertension compared with an atenolol-based regimen in the population studied.The study was supported by the principal funding source, Pfizer, New York, USA

Health-care costs of losartan and candesartan in the primary treatment of hypertension

A recent study of two widely used angiotensin receptor blockers reported a reduced risk of cardiovascular events (−14.4%) when using candesartan compared with losartan in the primary treatment of hypertension. In addition to clinical benefits, costs associated with treatment strategies must be considered when allocating scarce health-care resources. The aim of this study was to assess resource use and costs of losartan and candesartan in hypertensive patients. Resource use (drugs, outpatient contacts, hospitalizations and laboratory tests) associated with losartan and candesartan treatment was estimated in 14 100 patients in a real-life clinical setting. We electronically extracted patient data from primary care records and mandatory Swedish national registers for death and hospitalization. Patients treated with losartan had more outpatient contacts (+15.6%), laboratory tests (+13.8%) and hospitalizations (+13.8%) compared with the candesartan group. During a maximum observation time of 9 years, the mean total costs per patient were 10 369 Swedish kronor (95% confidence interval: 3109–17 629) higher in the losartan group. In conclusion, prescribing candesartan for the primary treatment of hypertension results in lower long-term health-care costs compared with losartan

Adverse events associated with unblinded, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial—Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase

BACKGROUND: In blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has been associated with few adverse events (AEs). By contrast, in observational studies, larger increases in many different AEs have been reported than in blinded trials. METHODS: In the Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, patients aged 40-79 years with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, and fasting total cholesterol concentrations of 6·5 mmol/L or lower, and who were not taking a statin or fibrate, had no history of myocardial infarction, and were not being treated for angina were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or matching placebo in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase. In a subsequent non-randomised non-blind extension phase (initiated because of early termination of the trial because efficacy of atorvastatin was shown), all patients were offered atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label. We classified AEs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. We blindly adjudicated all reports of four prespecified AEs of interest-muscle-related, erectile dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment-and analysed all remaining AEs grouped by system organ class. Rates of AEs are given as percentages per annum. RESULTS: The blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998, and December, 2002; we included 101 80 patients in this analysis (5101 [50%] in the atorvastatin group and 5079 [50%] in the placebo group), with a median follow-up of 3·3 years (IQR 2·7-3·7). The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December, 2002, and June, 2005; we included 9899 patients in this analysis (6409 [65%] atorvastatin users and 3490 [35%] non-users), with a median follow-up of 2·3 years (2·2-2·4). During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2·03% per annum] vs 283 [2·00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·88-1·21]; p=0·72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1·86% per annum] vs 302 [2·14% per annum]; 0·88 [0·75-1·04]; p=0·13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo. The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 [1·00% per annum] vs 210 [1·46% per annum]; 0·69 [0·56-0·85]; p=0·0005). Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 [0·20% per annum] vs 32 [0·22% per annum]; 0·94 [0·57-1·54]; p=0·81). We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 [1·87%] per annum vs 392 [1·51%] per annum; 1·23 [1·08-1·41]; p=0·002). By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 [1·26% per annum] vs 124 [1·00% per annum]; 1·41 [1·10-1·79]; p=0·006). We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8·69% per annum] vs 831 [7·45% per annum]; 1·17 [1·06-1·29]; p=0·001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0·88% per annum] vs 80 [0·64% per annum]; 1·40 [1·04-1·88]; p=0·03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users. INTERPRETATION: These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. These results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects. FUNDING: Pfizer, Servier Research Group, and Leo Laboratories

Hotline update of clinical trials and registries presented at the American College of Cardiology Congress 2010: ACCORD, INVEST, NAVIGATOR, RACE II, SORT OUT III, CSP-474, DOSE, ASPIRE and more

This article gives an overview on a number of novel clinical trials in the field of cardiovascular medicine, which were presented during the Late Breaking Clinical Trial Sessions at the 59th annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Atlanta, USA, from 14th March to 16th March 2010. The data were presented by leading experts in the field with relevant positions in the trials. These comprehensive summaries should provide the readers with the most recent data on diagnostic and therapeutic developments in cardiovascular medicine similar as previously reported (Schirmer SH, van der Laan AM, Bohm M, Mahfoud F in Clin Res Cardiol 98:691–699, 2009; Maier LS, Schirmer SH, Walenta K, Jacobshagen C, Bohm M in Clin Res Cardiol 98:413–419, 2009)