Department of Pharmacy, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Int J Clin Pract. 2011 Mar;65(3):253-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02633.x. Epub 2011 Feb 1.
The UK National Health Service (NHS) currently spends in excess of £250 million per annum on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure; with candesartan currently dominating the market. With the recent introduction of generic losartan, we set out to directly compare the branded market leader to its now cheaper alternative. The primary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of candesartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension and chronic heart failure, respectively. The secondary objective was to model their comparative incremental cost-effectiveness in a UK NHS setting. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Hypertension and Heart Group's specialist register, Medline (1950-February 2010), and Embase (1980-February 2010) were included in the search strategy. Selection criteria were randomised studies of candesartan versus losartan in adults (> 18 years). The main outcome measures were as follows: Hypertension: mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP. Heart failure: composite of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for management of heart failure. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eight (three of which met inclusion criteria) and zero trials compared candesartan directly with losartan in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, respectively. A between-treatment difference of -1.96 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.40 to -1.51] for trough diastolic BP and -3.00 mmHg (95% CI -3.79 to -2.22) for trough systolic BP in favour of candesartan was observed. Based on this differential, a 10-year Markov model estimates the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to exceed £40,000 for using candesartan in place of generic losartan. Candesartan reduces BP to a slightly greater extent when compared with losartan, however, such difference is unlikely to be cost-effective based on current acquisition costs, perceived NHS affordability thresholds and use of combination regimens. We could find no robust evidence supporting the superiority of candesartan over losartan in the treatment of heart failure. We therefore recommend using generic losartan as the ARB of choice which could save the UK NHS approximately £200 million per annum in drug costs.
英国国民医疗服务体系(NHS)目前每年在血管紧张素 II 受体阻滞剂(ARB)上的花费超过 2.5 亿英镑,用于治疗高血压和心力衰竭;其中坎地沙坦目前占据主导地位。随着最近通用氯沙坦的推出,我们着手直接比较品牌市场领导者和更便宜的替代品。主要目标是分别比较坎地沙坦和氯沙坦在治疗原发性高血压和慢性心力衰竭方面的降压疗效和心血管结局。次要目标是在英国 NHS 环境下对其进行比较增量成本效益分析。我们的搜索策略包括 Cochrane 中心对照试验注册库(Cochrane Library 2009 年第 2 期),其中包含高血压和心脏组的专业登记册,Medline(1950 年-2010 年 2 月)和 Embase(1980 年-2010 年 2 月)。选择标准是坎地沙坦与氯沙坦治疗成人(>18 岁)的随机研究。主要结局测量指标如下:高血压:基线时(24 小时后)谷值收缩压和舒张压的平均变化。心力衰竭:心血管死亡和因心力衰竭住院治疗的复合终点。两名评审员应用纳入标准,评估试验质量,并提取数据。有八项(其中三项符合纳入标准)和零项试验分别比较了坎地沙坦和氯沙坦在治疗高血压和心力衰竭方面的疗效。在谷值舒张压方面,坎地沙坦的治疗效果比氯沙坦好-1.96mmHg(95%置信区间[CI]:-2.40 至-1.51),在谷值收缩压方面,坎地沙坦的治疗效果比氯沙坦好-3.00mmHg(95%CI:-3.79 至-2.22)。基于这种差异,一个 10 年的 Markov 模型估计,使用坎地沙坦替代通用氯沙坦可使每获得一个质量调整生命年的成本超过 4 万英镑。与氯沙坦相比,坎地沙坦可更显著地降低血压,但基于当前的收购成本、NHS 可承受性阈值以及联合用药方案的使用,这种差异不太可能具有成本效益。我们没有找到支持坎地沙坦在治疗心力衰竭方面优于氯沙坦的可靠证据。因此,我们建议使用通用氯沙坦作为 ARB 的首选药物,这可能会使英国 NHS 每年节省约 2 亿英镑的药物费用。