Search

Background: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study was a randomized, doubleblind trial that compared the effects of losartan-based treatment with those of atenolol-based treatment on cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related morbidity and mortality in 9193 patients with hypertension and left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Compared with atenolol, losartan reduced the combined risk for CVD-related morbidity and mortality by 13% (P = 0.021), and reduced the risk for stroke by 25% (P = 0.001), with comparable blood pressure control in both trial arms., Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol in the treatment of stroke from the Dutch health care perspective., Methods: Utilization of losartan and atenolol within the trial period (mean, 4.8 years) and an estimation of direct medical costs of stroke for The Netherlands were combined with estimates of reduction in life expectancy through stroke. Medication costs and stroke incidence during 5.5 years of patient follow-up were estimated separately, adjusted for the baseline degree of LVH and Framingham risk score. To estimate lifetime stroke costs, the cumulative incidence of stroke was multiplied by the lifetime direct medical costs attributable to stroke. All costs are in 2006 Dutch prices and discounted following the former (4% costs and effects) and new Dutch guideline (4% costs, 1.5% effects) for conducting pharmacoeconomic analyses., Results: With 4% discounting, prevention of stroke was associated with a gain of 3.7 life-years. As a consequence, losartan treatment was associated with 0.059 life-year gained (LYG) per patient treated with losartan. Losartan reduced stroke-related costs by 1,076 Euros (US $1,349) per patient. After inclusion of study medication cost, net cost per patient was 51 Euros ($64) higher for losartan than atenolol. The net cost per LYG was 864 Euros ($1083), which is below the Dutch pharmacoeconomic threshold of 20,000 Euros/LYG (~$25,000/LYG) for accepting interventions. The corresponding probability of a cost-effectiveness ratio below this Dutch threshold was 0.95. Discounting money and health following the new Dutch guideline resulted in an even more favorable cost-effectiveness for losartan., Conclusions: Results from the present analysis suggest that, in The Netherlands, treatment with losartan compared with atenolol may well be a cost-effective intervention based on the reduced risk for stroke observed in the LIFE trial.

Introduction: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol for the treatment of hypertension, both from the point of view of society and from that of the health care sector, based on data from the LIFE study., Materials and Methods: The computations are based on a simple decision tree model, where the probability of stroke was obtained from the LIFE study, a double-blind, randomised clinical study of 9,193 patients with hypertensive left ventricle hypertrophy., Results: The treatment of hypertension with losartan rather than atenolol entails a cost of DKK 19,668 per gained quality-adjusted life year (QALY), when only the cost of the health care sector is taken into account, and DKK 72,564 if all costs to society are included., Conclusion: The analysis shows that treatment with losartan is cost-effective even when the uncertainty in both data and economic evaluations is taken into account.

Objective: Evaluate the cost effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol from a Swedish national health system perspective., Design: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE) was a double-masked, randomized trial of losartan versus atenolol in 9193 patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) ascertained by electrocardiography. Losartan reduced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke by 13% (P = 0.021) and reduced the risk of stroke by 25% (P = 0.001), despite a comparable degree of blood pressure control., Methods: Life years gained was estimated by combining the absolute risk reduction in stroke with the life years gained by preventing stroke. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was estimated by combining the absolute risk reduction in stroke with the QALYs gained by preventing stroke. QALYs were estimated by weighting life years by health-related quality of life (QoL), as measured with visual analogue scale (VAS) data collected in the trial. Net costs were defined as the total of study medication cost, stroke-related costs, and costs of increased survival. Costs are in 2003 Swedish prices. All costs and effects were discounted at a 3% annual rate., Results: Prevention of a stroke resulted in a gain of 5.7 life years and 4.3 QALYs. As a consequence, losartan treatment resulted in a per patient increase of 0.092 life years [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.038, 0.146] and 0.069 QALYs (95% CI: 0.028, 0.109) as compared with atenolol treatment. Losartan reduced direct stroke-related cost per patient by 1141 euros due to a lower cumulative incidence of stroke for losartan at 5.5 years (4.9%) as compared with atenolol (6.5%) (95% CI of difference: 0.7, 2.5). The reduction in stroke-related cost offset 80% of the added cost of losartan drug therapy. After inclusion of study medication cost, net cost per patient was 289 euros higher for losartan than atenolol. The net cost per QALY gained for losartan was 4188 euros (37,813 SEK), which is well within common Swedish benchmark upper values (200-500,000 SEK) for accepted cost-effective interventions., Conclusion: Based on the results from the LIFE trial, treatment with losartan compared with atenolol, in hypertensive patients with LVH, is a cost-effective intervention.

Background: The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Type 2 Diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that treatment with losartan reduced the risk of ESRD by 29% among hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared to placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs from a third-party payer perspective in Mexico., Methods: A competing risks method was used to estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, while accounting for the risk of death without ESRD. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD from the three main public institutions in Mexico, the lifetime cost of losartan therapy, and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD., Results: The projected lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients was lower (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in ESRD-related cost of M dollar 49,737 per patient and a discounted gain of 0.697 life years per patient. After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a net savings of M dollar 24,073 per patient., Conclusion: Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy not only reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD but is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD, increased survival, and overall cost savings to public institutions in Mexico.

Renin angiotensin system inhibitor therapy is seldom offered to individuals who have diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease because of safety concerns. In this post hoc, secondary analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial, angiotensin antagonism risk/benefit profile was assessed in 1513 individuals with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Incidence of ESRD, hospitalizations for heart failure, withdrawals for adverse events, and proteinuria during losartan or conventional treatment were compared within three tertiles of baseline serum creatinine concentration (highest, 2.1 to 3.6 mg/dl; middle, 1.6 to 2.0 mg/dl; lowest, 0.9 to 1.6 mg/dl). Losartan decreased the risk of ESRD by 24.6, 26.3, and 35.3% in highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, respectively. For every 100 patients with serum creatinine >2.0, 1.6 to 2.0, or <1.6 mg/dl, respectively, 4 yr of losartan therapy was estimated to save 18.9, 8.4, and 2.9 ESRD events and US$1,502,855, US$1,021,770, and US$528,591 costs for renal replacement therapy. Losartan also decreased the hospitalizations for heart failure by 50.2 and 45.1, in the highest and middle tertile, respectively. Withdrawals for adverse events other than heart failure were comparable between tertiles and treatment groups. Proteinuria decreased more on losartan than on placebo in all tertiles (highest, 24 versus -8%; middle, 16 versus -8%; lowest, 15 versus -10%). In proteinuric individuals with type 2 diabetes, losartan therapy reduced ESRD and hospitalizations for heart failure and was well tolerated at all levels of renal function. Angiotensin II antagonism is a suitable and well-tolerated treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes even with GFR levels approaching renal replacement therapy.

Background: Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study provided the opportunity to estimate costs associated with ESRD by baseline albuminuria from a United States perspective., Methods: Costs for ESRD in patients with diabetes were estimated by baseline albuminuria using the U.S. Renal Data System by using the number of days each patient experienced ESRD and the daily estimated U.S. cost of ESRD., Results: The losartan-based antihypertensive therapy group experienced a 28.6% (P=0.002) reduction in the risk of the development of ESRD compared with placebo-based conventional antihypertensive therapy. The previously estimated annual ESRD-related cost saving in the losartan group was 5,144 dollars (95% CI 1,701-8,586 dollars, P=0.003) at 3.5 years. With the cost of losartan, the net savings in the losartan group was estimated at 3,522 dollars (143-6,900 dollars, P=0.041) by 3.5 years. More ESRD-free days were observed and reduced ESRD costs estimated with losartan-based treatment over all levels of baseline albuminuria., Conclusion: Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy in the RENAAL study not only reduces the incidence of ESRD, but is also estimated from a U.S. perspective to result in substantial cost savings over the 3.5-year duration of the trial across all levels of baseline albuminuria.

Objective: To evaluate the within-trial effect of losartan and conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) compared with placebo and CT on the economic cost associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)., Research Design and Methods: The Reduction of End Points in Type 2 Diabetes With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study was a multinational double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to evaluate the renal protective effects of losartan on a background of CT (excluding ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor agonists [AIIAs]) in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The primary composite end point was doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD, or death. Data on the duration of ESRD were used to estimate the economic benefits of slowing the progression of nephropathy. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the days each patient experienced ESRD with the cost of ESRD over time. The cost of ESRD for individuals with diabetes was estimated using data from the U.S. Renal Data System. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD and the cost of study therapy. RESULTS-We estimated that losartan and CT compared with placebo and CT reduced the number of days with ESRD by 33.6 per patient over 3.5 years (P = 0.004, 95% CI 10.9-56.3). This reduction in ESRD days resulted in a decrease in cost associated with ESRD of 5144 US dollars per patient (P = 0.003, 95% CI 1701 to 8587 US dollars). After accounting for the cost of losartan, the reduction in ESRD days resulted in a net savings of 3522 US dollars per patient over 3.5 years (P = 0.041, 143 to 6900 US dollars)., Conclusions: Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy not only reduced the incidence of ESRD, but also resulted in substantial cost savings.

Introduction: The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy, treatment with losartan plus conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) reduced the relative risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) by 29% versus placebo over the time span of the study (mean patient follow-up of 3.4 years). The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared with placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs (from a US healthcare system perspective).Methods: To estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, we used a competing risks method to account for the risk of death without ESRD. We estimated the cost (US dollars, year 2002 values) associated with ESRD by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD, the cost of losartan study therapy and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3% per annum.Results: We projected a lower lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in cost associated with ESRD of US dollars 31,803 per patient and a gain of 0.99 life-years per patient (0.70 discounted). After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a lifetime net saving of US dollars 24,632 per patient.Conclusion: Treatment with losartan plus CT in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD and is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD and associated costs, and increased survival, versus placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate losartan and conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) compared with CT alone on the cost associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. Methods: Reduction of end-points in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with the angiotensin II antagonist losartan (RENAAL) was a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the renal protective effects of losartan on a background of CT in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The primary composite end-point was a doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD or death. Data on the duration of ESRD for the Asian subgroup of patients enrolled in RENAAL were used to estimate the economic benefits of slowing the progression of nephropathy. The cost associated with ESRD was estimated by combining the number of days each patient experienced ESRD with the average daily cost of dialysis from the third-party payer perspective in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. Total cost, converted to US dollars, was the sum of ESRD and losartan costs. Results: Losartan plus CT reduced the number of days with ESRD by 37.9 per patient over 3.5 years compared with CT alone. This reduction in ESRD days resulted in a decrease in the cost associated with ESRD, which ranges from $910 to $4346 per patient over 3.5 years across the six countries or regions. After accounting for the cost of losartan, the reduction in ESRD days resulted in net savings in each of the six countries or regions, ranging from $55 to $515 per patient. Conclusion: Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy not only reduced the incidence of ESRD among Asian patients, but resulted in direct medical cost savings in countries or regions representing Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors improves outcomes and symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). We compared effects of losartan to captopril on mortality, morbidity, and functional status for patients in the ELITE II study. Methods and results: A total of 3152 patients, aged 60 years or older, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II to IV HF and ejection fraction ≤40% were assigned to receive losartan 50 mg once daily or captopril 50 mg 3 times daily. Outcome measures included all-cause and HF-related mortality, hospitalizations, and discontinuations; change in NYHA class; and quality of life (QoL). HF-related outcomes were not significantly different between therapies. Similar improvements from baseline (P < .01) in NYHA class were observed within both treatment groups. Among 1856 QoL participants, 1343 patients survived at least 1 year; the QoL for 1-year survivors improved in both treatment groups (P < .001 vs baseline) and did not differ between groups. Conclusions: In ELITE II, the effects of losartan on HF-related outcomes, NYHA class, and QoL were not superior to those of captopril. Although angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors remain the treatment of choice for patients with HF, the similarity of the findings in the present analysis supports a role for angiotensin-receptor antagonists in this patient population. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]