Search

This cost-consequences analysis of the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study compares the costs of lovastatin treatment with the costs of cardiovascular hospitalizations and procedures. The cost of lovastatin treatment was defined as the average retail price and the cost of drug safety monitoring and adverse experiences. Costs were determined by actual rates of hospitalizations and procedures. Within a trial, lovastatin treatment cost approximately $4,654/patient. Lovastatin treatment significantly reduced the cumulative rate of cardiovascular hospitalizations and procedures (p = 0.002). Over the duration of the study, the cumulative number of cardiovascular hospitalizations and related therapeutic procedures was significantly reduced by 29%. The time to first cardiovascular-related hospitalization or procedure was significantly extended by lovastatin (p = 0.002). Lovastatin reduced the frequency of cardiovascular hospitalization (28%), and cardiovascular therapeutic (32%) and diagnostic procedures (23%). Among therapeutic procedures, treatment reduced coronary artery bypass graft surgery by 19% and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by 37%. Total cardiovascular-related hospital days were reduced by 26% (p = 0.025). The between-group offset in direct medical costs was $524, which resulted in a 11% cost offset of lovastatin therapy over the mean study duration of 5.2 years. Lovastatin provides meaningful reductions in cardiovascular-related resource utilization and reductions in direct cardiovascular-related costs associated with the onset of coronary disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A substudy of the Lovastatin Restenosis Trial in patients with elevated cholesterol (>200 mg/dl) showed no evidence of an effect of aggressive lipid lowering on restenosis, confirming the results of the main trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has been reported that a statistically greater percentage of patients initially treated with losartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (AIIA), stayed on therapy at 1 year compared with patients treated with antihypertensive drugs from other classes., Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the stay-on-therapy (persistence) patterns observed in the previous analysis were maintained over a 4-year period., Methods: We investigated a subgroup of 15,175 hypertensive patients from an earlier studied cohort who were continuously eligible for benefits over a 4-year follow-up period. A linear regression model was developed to test the statistical significance of differences in the percentage of patients staying on therapy from 12 months to 48 months for the different antihypertensive classes., Results: From 12 to 48 months, there was a slow continuous decline in persistence that was similar across all classes of antihypertensive medications. A greater percentage of patients treated with an AIIA (losartan) stayed on therapy from 12 to 48 months compared with patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (67.4% vs 60.7% at 12 months, P < 0.01; 50.9% vs 46.5% at 48 months, P = 0.095), calcium antagonists (67.4% vs 54.1% at 12 months, P < 0.01; 50.9% vs 40.7% at 48 months, P < 0.03), beta-blockers (67.4% vs 45.6% at 12 months, P < 0.01; 50.9% vs 34.7% at 48 months, P < 0.03), or thiazide diuretics (67.4% vs 20.8% at 12 months, P < 0.01; 50.9% vs 16.4% at 48 months, P < 0.03). The percentage of patients staying on AIIA therapy from 12 months to 48 months was statistically greater (P < 0.001) than the percentage of patients staying on therapy with other antihypertensive drug classes., Conclusions: This analysis supports the observation that initiation of antihylertensive therapy with an AIIA such as losartan results in a greater persistence rate over a 4-year period than does therapy with any other antihypertensive class. These findings may have important implications for blood pressure control, reduction of cardiovascular risks, and health care resource utilization.

Objective: This study was undertaken to assess drug-use patterns associated with albuterol delivery via a new propellant device compared with conventional chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) in patients taking asthma medications in a population with pharmacy benefits., Background: In addition to their ozone-depleting properties, conventional CFC inhalers often deliver inconsistent doses because of loss of prime and temperature instability. A new propellant, hydrofluoroalkane (HFA), incorporates a re-engineered delivery system associated with dosing reproducibility throughout the life of the canister., Methods: Drug markers associated with management of asthma were used to identify a study cohort of new users of inhaled albuterol from a geographically diverse pharmacyclaims database from July 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997. A population of 282,879 members was identified over the 20-month follow-up period. In addition, a subset of chronic albuterol inhaler users (> or = 12 months; n = 96,879) was also identified to support a longitudinal analysis. Disease severity was controlled for by use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To control for canisters received via physician office samples, HFA patient use was corrected by a physician-based canister adjustment based on HFA sample data., Results: A total of 53.1% of participants were women and 46.1% were men; most of the population (72.5%) was <65 years of age. Canister use for HFA patients was consistently lower (2.7+/-3.2 vs 5.4+/-6.7) than for CFC MDIs for the entire cohort over the 20-month assessment period. This difference was consistently observed for albuterol canister use in patients with and without concomitant ICS use (3.3+/-3.8 HFA vs 7.2+/-7.5 CFC for ICS users and 2.1+/-2.1 HFA vs 4.1+/-5.7 CFC for non-ICS users). Time to next prescription also was longer for HFA patients than for CFC patients (61.6+/-50.9 days HFA vs 47.3+/-40.8 days CFC). When duration of therapy and physician samples associated with product launch were controlled for, similar differences were consistently observed. CFC patients used, on average, 1.3 more canisters per year than did HFA patients (P < 0.001), averaging 10.7 canisters (95% CI, 10.6 to 10.7), compared with 9.4 canisters used by HFA patients (95% CI, 8.9 to 9.9). Further analyses indicated that this finding was consistent when ICS use was controlled for (CFC plus ICS mean, 11.9 canisters vs HFA plus ICS mean, 10.4 canisters; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: This study provides useful information about the effect of use of a new albuterol delivery system on asthma inhaler management. These data suggest that CFC patients use an average of 1.3 more canisters per year compared with HFA patients independent of asthma severity as measured by ICS use. This improvement in dosing characteristics has the potential to translate into enhanced economic outcomes.

A substudy of the Lovastatin Restenosis Trial in patients with elevated cholesterol (>200 mg/dl) showed no evidence of an effect of aggressive lipid lowering on restenosis, confirming the results of the main trial.