The potential savings of using thiazides as the first choice antihypertensive drug: cost-minimisation analysis

BACKGROUND: All clinical practice guidelines recommend thiazides as a first-choice drug for the management of uncomplicated hypertension. Thiazides are also the lowest priced antihypertensive drugs. Despite this, the use of thiazides is much lower than that of other drug-classes. We wanted to estimate the potential for savings if thiazides were used as the first choice drug for the management of uncomplicated hypertension. METHODS: For six countries (Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the UK and the US) we estimated the number of people that are being treated for hypertension, and the proportion of them that are suitable candidates for thiazide-therapy. By comparing this estimate with thiazide prescribing, we calculated the number of people that could switch from more expensive medication to thiazides. This enabled us to estimate the potential drug-cost savings. The analysis was based on findings from epidemiological studies and drug trials, and data on sales and prescribing provided by IMS for the year 2000. RESULTS: For Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the UK and the US the estimated potential annual savings were US$13.8 million, US$37.4 million, US$72.2 million, US$10.7 million, US$119.7 million and US$433.6 million, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Millions of dollars could be saved each year if thiazides were prescribed for hypertension in place of more expensive drugs. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. The potential for savings is likely considerably higher and may be more than US$1 billion per year in the US

The combination of amlodipine and angiotensin receptor blocker or diuretics in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale, design and baseline characteristics

The Chinese Hypertension Intervention Efficacy Study (CHIEF) is a multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the effects of amlodipine+angiotensin II receptor blocker and amlodipine+diuretics on the incidence of cardiovascular events, represented as a composite of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death events in high-risk Chinese hypertensive patients. The study also evaluates the long-term effects of lipid-lowering treatment and lifestyle modification. From October 2007 to October 2008, 13 542 patients were enrolled into the study in 180 centres in China. Patients will be followed up for 4 years. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the two blood pressure arms

Informative noncompliance in endpoint trials

Noncompliance with study medications is an important issue in the design of endpoint clinical trials. Including noncompliant patient data in an intention-to-treat analysis could seriously decrease study power. Standard methods for calculating sample size account for noncompliance, but all assume that noncompliance is noninformative, i.e., that the risk of discontinuation is independent of the risk of experiencing a study endpoint. Using data from several published clinical trials (OPTIMAAL, LIFE, RENAAL, SOLVD-Prevention and SOLVD-Treatment), we demonstrate that this assumption is often untrue, and we discuss the effect of informative noncompliance on power and sample size

How much effect of different antihypertensive medications on cardiovascular outcomes is attributable to their effects on blood pressure?

The debate over whether certain antihypertensive medications have benefits beyond what would be expected from their blood pressure lowering spurred the Antihypertensive and Lipid‐Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, which randomized 42,418 participants to chlorthalidone (15,255), amlodipine (9048), lisinopril (9054), or doxazosin (9061). We compared chlorthalidone, the active control, with each of the other three agents with respect to the primary outcome, fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, and several other clinical endpoints. The arms were similar with respect to the primary endpoint, although some differences were found for other endpoints, most notably heart failure. Although the desire was to achieve similar blood pressure reductions in the four arms, we found some systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure differences. A natural question is to what degree can observed treatment group differences in cardiovascular outcomes be attributed to these blood pressure differences. The purpose of this paper was to delineate the problems inherent in attempting to answer this question, and to present analyses intended to overcome these problems. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd