Search

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]

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.

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.

Background: The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM [non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus] with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study demonstrated the renoprotective effects of losartan in patients with nephropathy from type 2 diabetes., Objective: To perform an economic evaluation of the costs associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from a Canadian public health perspective, based on the clinical outcomes reported in the RENAAL study., Methods: ESRD-related costs were determined by estimating the mean number of days with ESRD multiplied by the daily cost of ESRD (140 dollars); mean days with ESRD were calculated by subtracting the area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for time to the first event of ESRD or all-cause mortality from the area under the curve for all-cause mortality. Daily ESRD cost was determined using Canadian specific data sources. ESRD-related cost savings with losartan were obtained by subtracting the ESRD-related costs of the losartan group from those of the placebo group. Net cost savings were ESRD-related cost savings with losartan minus the drug cost of losartan., Results: Losartan reduced the number of ESRD days by 33.6 per patient over 3.5 years (95% CI 10.9 to 56.3) compared with placebo. Losartan reduced ESRD-related costs by 4,695 dollars per randomized patient over 3.5 years (95% CI 1,523 dollars to 7,868 dollars). After accounting for the drug cost of losartan, net cost savings with losartan were 3,675 dollars per randomized patient over 3.5 years., Conclusion: Losartan therapy for patients with nephropathy from type 2 diabetes reduces the clinical incidence of ESRD and can result in considerable cost savings for the Canadian public health system.

Background: Migraine is prevalent and associated with substantial direct and indirect costs that may vary across geographic and national boundaries. The effects of migraine, self-reported by Canadians, on health care resource use as well as paid and unpaid work loss were examined., Patients and Methods: The Migraine Background Questionnaire (MBQ) was self-administered during the screening visit of a phase III clinical trial of rizatriptan (a potent, selective 5-hydroxytryptamine(1B/1D)-receptor agonist or 'triptan'). Patients suffering from moderate to severe migraine in the previous six months were offered the opportunity to participate. Migraine frequency was determined and costs were estimated and assigned based on known direct costs of health care resource utilization, and indirect costs of paid and unpaid work and productivity loss., Results: One hundred thirty-four patients completed the MBQ. In the previous year, 89% of those patients reported visiting a clinic, 23% reported visiting an emergency room and 5% reported being hospitalized for migraine. Patients reported an average of 6.5 days absent from work, 44 days working with migraine headache and 10.4 reduced workday equivalents due to ineffectiveness at work with migraine. Based on data obtained from the Ontario, the average overall annual cost due to migraine was estimated to be 3,025 dollars/patient; most of this (87%) due to indirect costs., Conclusion: In Canada, patients with moderate to severe migraine, as identified in a phase III clinical trial, reported lost work days and reduced effectiveness while at work, as well as increased health care resource utilization due to migraine. The associated cost was estimated to be substantial.