Search

Objective: The treatment of hypertensive patients (HTs) requires a long-term commitment of compliance for the patient and resources by the healthcare system. This poses an economic dilemma in countries where universal healthcare is standard. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs/health benefit and effectiveness of treatment with angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) in uncomplicated essential hypertension., Design and Methods: The daily and annual economic commitment for treating patients with ARBs was estimated using pharmacy dispensing records and the BP-lowering effects of candesartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan and valsartan was evaluated retrospectively. In 114 HTs (mean age 59.4±13.5year, 57.5% men), the BP-lowering effect of ARBs as in monotherapy and in fixed-dose combination (FDC) with hydrochlorothiazide at the doses commonly used in the market to reach BP control (i.e. BP <140/90mmHg) was analyzed. The BP lowering-effect was evaluated after an average of 6-month follow-up consulting medical professionals. Analysis of variance for repeated measures was provided., Results: Treatment with candesartan (14.1%) and olmesartan (32,4%) versus other ARBs resulted in a significant decrease in BP as for mono- than for FDC therapy. Our studies suggest that daily (data not shown) and annual costs of olmesartan were higher than candesartan as in mono- (4577.71±1120.55 vs. 894.25±127.75 €) than for FDC therapy (5715.90±459.90 vs. 1580.45±113.15 €)., Conclusions: Treatment: of BP with candesartan appears to be the most favorable option in terms of cost-effectiveness coupled with favorable health outcomes. These data have some limitations, but open the question if candesartan should be preferred to olmesartan in BP management. Further prospective studies comparing ARBs based on their effect on BP control in uncomplicated HTs are needed for validation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Blood pressure (BP) control is the main clinical goal in the management of hypertensive patients; however, BP in most of these patients remains uncontrolled, despite the widespread availability of antihypertensive drugs as free-combination therapy. This study compared the efficacy of a fixed-dose triple combination (FDTC) of antihypertensive drugs with that of a free combination of three antihypertensives in patients with uncontrolled hypertension., Methods: Ninety-two patients (mean age 60.8 ± 12.1, 58.0% male) with uncontrolled essential hypertension (office systolic BP ≥ 140 or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg) previously treated with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor plus hydrochlorothiazide were switched to once-daily FDTC therapy with perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine (5-10/1.25-2.5/5-10 mg). Patients were age- and sex-matched with a control group of hypertensive patients receiving free-combination therapy with three drugs including a RAAS inhibitor, a diuretic, and a calcium channel blocker. Office BP and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) were evaluated at baseline and after 1 and 4 months., Results: Significant reductions in ambulatory 24-h, daytime, and nighttime systolic BP, and pulse pressure (PP) were found in the FDTC group relative to reductions seen with free-combination therapy, after the first month only of follow-up. Target BP values (mean 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP < 130/80 mmHg) were reached by more recipients of FDTC than free-combination therapy (64.8% vs. 46.9%, p < 0.05) at month 4 of follow-up, despite reductions in 24-h ABPM values from baseline being similar in both groups at this time point., Conclusion: FDTC of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine was effective at reducing SBP and PP in previously treated patients with uncontrolled hypertension, and well tolerated, providing support for clinicians in choosing a fixed-dose triple combination over the free-combination of a RAAS inhibitor, a diuretic, and a calcium antagonist.