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

The equivalence of numbers: The social value of avoiding health decline: An experimental web-based study

BACKGROUND: Health economic analysis aimed at informing policy makers and supporting resource allocation decisions has to evaluate not only improvements in health but also avoided decline. Little is known however, whether the "direction" in which changes in health are experienced is important for the public in prioritizing among patients. This experimental study investigates the social value people place on avoiding (further) health decline when directly compared to curative treatments in resource allocation decisions. METHODS: 127 individuals completed an interactive survey that was published in the World Wide Web. They were confronted with a standard gamble (SG) and three person trade-off tasks, either comparing improvements in health (PTO-Up), avoided decline (PTO-Down), or both, contrasting health changes of equal magnitude differing in the direction in which they are experienced (PTO-WAD). Finally, a direct priority ranking of various interventions was obtained. RESULTS: Participants strongly prioritized improving patients' health rather than avoiding decline. The mean substitution rate between health improvements and avoided decline (WAD) ranged between 0.47 and 0.64 dependent on the intervention. Weighting PTO values according to the direction in which changes in health are experienced improved their accuracy in predicting a direct prioritization ranking. Health state utilities obtained by the standard gamble method seem not to reflect social values in resource allocation contexts. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the utility of being cured of a given health state might not be a good approximation for the societal value of avoiding this health state, especially in cases of competition between preventive and curative interventions

Protective Activity of Streptococcus pneumoniae Spr1875 Protein Fragments Identified Using a Phage Displayed Genomic Library

There is considerable interest in pneumococcal protein antigens capable of inducing serotype-independent immunoprotection and of improving, thereby, existing vaccines. We report here on the immunogenic properties of a novel surface antigen encoded by ORF spr1875 in the R6 strain genome. An antigenic fragment encoded by spr1875, designated R4, was identified using a Streptococcus pneumoniae phage displayed genomic library after selection with a human convalescent serum. Immunofluorescence analysis with anti-R4 antisera showed that Spr1875 was expressed on the surface of strains belonging to different serotypes. Moreover, the gene was present with little sequence variability in 27 different pneumococcal strains isolated worldwide. A mutant lacking Spr1875 was considerably less virulent than the wild type D39 strain in an intravenous mouse model of infection. Moreover, immunization with the R4 recombinant fragment, but not with the whole Spr1875 protein, induced significant protection against sepsis in mice. Lack of protection after immunization with the whole protein was related to the presence of immunodominant, non-protective epitopes located outside of the R4 fragment. In conclusion, our data indicate that Spr1875 has a role in pneumococcal virulence and is immunogenic. As the R4 fragment conferred immunoprotection from experimental sepsis, selected antigenic fragments of Spr1875 may be useful for the development of a pneumococcal protein-based vaccine

Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension

Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties no comparative studies with cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been performed within this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are blood pressure independent CVD-risk differences between losartan and candesartan treatment in patients with hypertension without known CVD. Seventy-two primary care centres in Sweden were screened for patients who had been prescribed losartan or candesartan between the years 1999 and 2007. Among the 24 943 eligible patients, 14 100 patients were diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed losartan (n=6771) or candesartan (n=7329). Patients were linked to Swedish national hospitalizations and death cause register. There was no difference in blood pressure reduction when comparing the losartan and candesartan groups during follow-up. Compared with the losartan group, the candesartan group had a lower adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD (0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.96, P=0.0062), heart failure (0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.82, P=0.0004), cardiac arrhythmias (0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.92, P=0.0330), and peripheral artery disease (0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.91, P=0.0140). No difference in blood pressure reduction was observed suggesting that other mechanisms related to different pharmacological properties of the drugs may explain the divergent clinical outcomes

Подготовка ИТ-консультантов в российских вузах в разрезе проблематики консалтинга

Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11 725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36 482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.96, P = 0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed

Diabetes and CVD risk during angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker treatment in hypertension : a study of 15 990 patients

Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11 725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36 482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.96, P = 0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed