The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Drug Use Policy and Pharmacoeconomics, Houston, TX, USA.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Jun;26(6):1307-20. doi: 10.1185/03007991003711045.
To evaluate the cost effectiveness of achieving JNC 7 blood pressure goals with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs).
Cost effectiveness of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan was compared with real world patient chart and claims data from a large US health plan. Patients 18 and older with >or=2 claims for an ARB between May 1, 2002 and December 31, 2005 were identified from the claims database. Patients with a diagnosis of hypertension in the 6-month baseline period before the first (index) ARB claim and ARB-free during baseline were included. Medical charts were randomly sampled from the cohort of identified patients; effectiveness data were obtained from charts and linked to healthcare claims and costs. These data were used to populate the decision analytic model.
All-cause and hypertension-attributable costs to achieve JNC 7 goals were measured. Comparisons were made within low and high-dose strata and pooled across ARB doses.
121 472 patients were identified, and charts were randomly abstracted for 1600. Of these, 1293 patients were hypertensive at index. Baseline patient characteristics for the chart group were modestly different from the larger cohort. More patients treated with olmesartan (77.8%) than with losartan (66.5%), valasartan (68.8%), or irbesartan (68.8%) achieved JNC 7 BP goals. In pooled-dose comparisons, cost per patient reaching BP goal was $8964 (all-cause) and $2704 (hypertension-attributable) for olmesartan; compared with $10 848 and $3291 for losartan; $10 557 and $3577 for valsartan; and $13395 and $4325 for irbesartan, respectively. The trend was similar for the dose stratification analysis, except in the comparison between high-dose losartan and olmesartan, where losartan had a lower cost-effectiveness ratio.
Overall olmesartan was the most effective and cost-saving treatment option compared to losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan for the achievement of JNC 7 BP goals in this managed-care population.
评估血管紧张素Ⅱ受体阻滞剂(ARB)实现 JNC7 血压目标的成本效益。
比较奥美沙坦、氯沙坦、缬沙坦和厄贝沙坦的成本效益,采用来自美国大型健康计划的真实患者图表和索赔数据。从索赔数据库中确定了 2002 年 5 月 1 日至 2005 年 12 月 31 日期间至少有 2 次 ARB 索赔的年龄为 18 岁或以上的患者。在首次(索引)ARB 索赔前的 6 个月基线期和基线期内无 ARB 治疗的情况下,患者患有高血压的诊断。从确定的患者队列中随机抽取病历;从图表中获得有效性数据,并与医疗保健索赔和成本相关联。这些数据用于填充决策分析模型。
测量实现 JNC7 目标的全因和高血压归因成本。在低剂量和高剂量分层内进行比较,并在 ARB 剂量之间进行汇总。
确定了 121472 名患者,并随机抽取了 1600 名患者的图表。其中,1293 名患者在索引时患有高血压。图表组的基线患者特征与较大队列略有不同。用奥美沙坦治疗的患者(77.8%)比用氯沙坦(66.5%)、缬沙坦(68.8%)或厄贝沙坦(68.8%)治疗的患者更能达到 JNC7BP 目标。在汇总剂量比较中,达到血压目标的每位患者的成本为奥美沙坦 8964 美元(全因)和 2704 美元(高血压归因);与氯沙坦的 10848 美元和 3291 美元相比;缬沙坦为 10557 美元和 3577 美元;厄贝沙坦为 13395 美元和 4325 美元。在剂量分层分析中,趋势相似,除了高剂量氯沙坦和奥美沙坦之间的比较,其中氯沙坦具有较低的成本效益比。
在这项管理式医疗人群中,与氯沙坦、缬沙坦和厄贝沙坦相比,奥美沙坦总体上是实现 JNC7 血压目标的最有效和节省成本的治疗选择。