Search

Introduction: Prescribing restrictions for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) limited their utilization in Austria. Recently, generic losartan became available with its prescribing restrictions lifted while still in place for patented ARBs., Objectives: The main aim of this study is to assess the impact of the lifting of the prescribing restriction on utilization of losartan in ambulatory care versus other single ARBs, expenditure per defined daily dose (DDD) of losartan as well as total ARB expenditure and utilization of ARB combinations. Finally, to suggest potential measures that could be introduced to further enhance ARB-prescribing efficiency., Methodology: A quasi-experimental study of the utilization of different ARBs alone or in fixed dose combinations using a segmented time series. Utilization measured in DDDs, defined as 'the average maintenance dose of a drug when used in its major indication in adults'. Costs measured as total expenditure for different ARBs as well as their expenditure/DDD., Results: Losartan utilization increased significantly following the withdrawal of prescribing restrictions (p > 0.001). Utilization of single-sourced ARBs also increased , but the growth rate was appreciably reduced once restrictions were lifted for losartan (p > 0.01). As a result, total expenditure of single ARBs increased but at an appreciably lower rate than utilization, helped by total expenditure/DDD for losartan declining by 78% over the study period. There was continuing appreciable utilization of fixed-dose combinations., Conclusion: Lifting of prescribing restrictions for losartan significantly enhanced its utilization, increasing ARB-prescribing efficiency, providing direction to other European authorities. Additional reforms are being considered to further switch utilization away from single-sourced ARBs to additionally improve prescribing efficiency as more multiple sourced ARBs become available.

Objectives: Losartan will shortly become generic, and this may encourage switching to the generic drug. However, valsartan was shown in a meta-analysis to be statistically superior in lowering blood pressure (BP) to losartan. This paper examines the costs of treatment with these two drugs and the potential consequences of switching established valsartan patients to generic losartan., Methods: A US payer cost-effectiveness model was developed incorporating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events related to systolic blood pressure (SBP) control comparing valsartan to continual losartan and switching from valsartan to generic losartan. The model, based upon a meta-analysis by Nixon et al. and Framingham equations, included first CVD event costs calculated from US administrative data sets and utility values from published sources. The modeled outcomes were number of CVD events, costs and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY)., Results: Fewer patients had fatal and non-fatal CVD events with valsartan therapy compared with continual losartan and with patients switched from valsartan to generic losartan. The base-case model results indicated that continued treatment with valsartan had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,268 and $25,460 per life year gained, and $32,313 and $30,170 per QALY gained, relative to continual losartan and switching treatments, respectively. Sensitivity analyses found that patient discontinuation post-switching was a sensitive parameter. Including efficacy offsets with lowered adherence or discontinuation resulted in more favorable ratios for valsartan compared to switching therapy., Limitations: The model does not evaluate post-primary CVD events and considers change in SBP from baseline level as the sole predictor of CVD risk., Conclusions: Valsartan appears to be cost-effective compared to switching to generic losartan and switching to the generic drug does not support a cost offset argument over the longer term. Physicians should continue to consider the needs of individual patient and not cost offsets.

Unlabelled: European countries strive to enhance prescribing efficiency. This includes renin-angiotensin drugs following the availability of generic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)., Aims: To compare angiotensin receptor blocker utilization and expenditure patterns in Austria and Croatia following prescribing restrictions, as well as with other European countries introducing different supply- and demand-side measures. Lastly, to appraise the impact of generic losartan in Croatia on utilization of patented angiotensin receptor blockers., Method: Observational retrospective study principally between 2001 and 2007, using defined daily doses and €/1000 inhabitants/year. Demand-side measures were based on the four 'E's - education, engineering, economics and enforcement., Results: Greater intensity of follow-up of prescribing restrictions in Croatia enhanced utilization of ACEIs versus Austria. There was high utilization of ACEIs in Scotland following intensive demand-side measures, similar to Austria and Croatia. Demand-side measures in Spain (Catalonia) and Sweden also appeared to moderate angiotensin receptor blockers utilization. The combination of measures helped stabilize expenditure on renin-angiotensin drugs when adjusted for population sizes despite appreciable increases in volumes. The only exception was Portugal, with less intensive measures., Conclusion: Multiple and intensive demand-side measures enhanced prescribing efficiency. The more intense follow-up of ARB prescribing restrictions in Croatia had a greater influence on subsequent utilization patterns than Austria. Both findings confirm earlier studies. Reforms also favorably enhanced the prescribing of generic losartan once available.

In a clinical trial, treatment of mild-moderate hypertensive patients with losartan (50 mg) increased Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores by 4 points from baseline over a 26-month period, compared with a 1-point increase in patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg). This study explores the potential economic consequences of this improvement in cognitive function in a population of elderly hypertensive patients in Sweden. Resource use and MMSE data for 437 hypertensive, non-demented subjects aged 75 years and above, were taken from a population-based study in Sweden. MMSE scores were strongly related with costs of care due to higher utilization of home help and special living arrangements in patients with low scores. A 1-point difference in MMSE was associated with a difference in the annual cost of care of approximately 5700 Swedish kronor (SEK). Over 26 months, the potential cost savings from the 4-point improvement observed with losartan was estimated to be between 24700 and 43700 SEK. This can be compared with the acquisition cost of losartan; approximately 5700 SEK over the study period. Thus, an improvement in cognitive function of the magnitude documented in the study of losartan vs hydrochlorothiazide, may translate into economic benefits beyond those expected in terms of blood pressure control.