scholarly journals Cost minimization analysis of generic and innovator formulations of antihypertensive drugs

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 2625
Author(s):  
Vishalkumar K. Vadgama ◽  
Vishal L. Gaekwad
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Medication Cost ◽  
National Committee ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors

Background: Hypertension, a chronic condition requiring lifelong care, affects approximately 25.3% Indian population. Average annual hypertension management cost which also includes medication cost varies from Rs. 4042 to 7621, amounting up to 40% of total household income of few families. Selection of a different brand or generic formulation may have an immense impact on total expenditure for treatment of hypertension. Present study aims at determining cost variability and cost analysis of various single drug antihypertensive formulations available in Indian market.Methods: One most prescribed drug, each from Joint National Committee recommended antihypertensive- thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers and β blockers were selected for cost analysis. Cheapest, costliest and median priced formulations were searched for individual drugs and were compared to the price of their generic counterparts.Results: Generic formulations of hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, enalapril, losartan and atenolol were cheaper even than their respective cheapest innovator formulations. Costliest innovator formulation of amlodipine was 1750% expensive than generic one. Costliest counterparts of generic formulations were many folds overpriced. Similarly, innovator formulation of losartan was up to 953.89% costly than generic one. Innovator formulations of hydrochlorothiazide were the least costly than its generic counterpart, yet being at least 150% more expensive. Also, there exists considerable broad range of price among similar innovator formulations.Conclusions: By prescribing generic antihypertensive drug, we can reduce treatment expenditure by many folds. Same feat can be marginally achieved by using lower cost innovator formulations.

scholarly journals Antihypertensive Drugs and the Risk of Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 771
Author(s):  
In-Jeong Cho ◽  
Jeong-Hun Shin ◽  
Mi-Hyang Jung ◽  
Chae Young Kang ◽  
Jinseub Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Beta Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Antihypertensive Medications ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Incident Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Of Cancer

We sought to assess the association between common antihypertensive drugs and the risk of incident cancer in treated hypertensive patients. Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the risk of cancer incidence was analyzed in patients with hypertension who were initially free of cancer and used the following antihypertensive drug classes: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs); angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); beta blockers (BBs); calcium channel blockers (CCBs); and diuretics. During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, there were 4513 (6.4%) overall cancer incidences from an initial 70,549 individuals taking antihypertensive drugs. ARB use was associated with a decreased risk for overall cancer in a crude model (hazard ratio (HR): 0.744, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.696–0.794) and a fully adjusted model (HR: 0.833, 95% CI: 0.775–0.896) compared with individuals not taking ARBs. Other antihypertensive drugs, including ACEIs, CCBs, BBs, and diuretics, did not show significant associations with incident cancer overall. The long-term use of ARBs was significantly associated with a reduced risk of incident cancer over time. The users of common antihypertensive medications were not associated with an increased risk of cancer overall compared to users of other classes of antihypertensive drugs. ARB use was independently associated with a decreased risk of cancer overall compared to other antihypertensive drugs.

scholarly journals Tianma Gouteng Yin as Adjunctive Treatment for Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Wang ◽  
Bo Feng ◽  
Xiaochen Yang ◽  
Wei Liu ◽  
Yongmei Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Essential Hypertension ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Deficiency Syndrome ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors

Background. Tianma Gouteng Yin (TGY) is widely used for essential hypertension (EH) as adjunctive treatment. Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of TGY for EH have been published. However, it has not been evaluated to justify their clinical use and recommendation based on TCM zheng classification.Objectives. To assess the current clinical evidence of TGY as adjunctive treatment for EH with liver yang hyperactivity syndrome (LYHS) and liver-kidney yin deficiency syndrome (LKYDS).Search Strategy. 7 electronic databases were searched until November 20, 2012.Inclusion Criteria. RCTs testing TGY combined with antihypertensive drugs versus antihypertensive drugs were included.Data Extraction and Analyses. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane standards.Results. 22 RCTs were included. Methodological quality was generally low. Except diuretics treatment group, blood pressure was improved in the other 5 subgroups; zheng was improved in angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and “CCB + ACEI” treatment groups. The safety of TGY is still uncertain.Conclusions. No confirmed conclusion about the effectiveness and safety of TGY as adjunctive treatment for EH with LYHS and LKYDS could be made. More rigorous trials are needed to confirm the results.

Abstract 232: Medication Cost Savings Using an On-line Drug Discount Program

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Satish Munigala ◽  
Margaret Brandon ◽  
Zackary D Goff ◽  
Richard Sagall ◽  
Paul J Hauptman
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Beta Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Medication Cost ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Assistance Programs

Objective: To evaluate the frequency of drug discount card utilization and to estimate cost savings associated with heart failure (HF) medication prescriptions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all HF prescriptions filled through the NeedyMeds.org drug discount card program nationwide, from January 2009 to December 2016. We evaluated the frequency of drug discount card prescriptions (across pharmacy types, pharmacy location, by prescriber specialty and by drug class) and calculated cost savings (average per drug discount card and total program dollars saved) for entire study period and for each year (from 2009 to 2016). Findings: A total of 381,347 prescriptions for medications that can be used for HF with drug discount cards were identified during the study period (83.7% at national, 5.7% at regional and 9.8% at local pharmacies). Most prescriptions were filled at urban locations (89.1% in urban clusters, 7.6% in urbanized areas) and in ZIP-codes with lower median household income (65.5%). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and selected angiotensin receptor blockers were the most prescribed drugs with discount cards (44.1%) followed by beta blockers (27.5%), diuretics (21.5%), and mineralocorticoid receptor agonists (3.9%). The number of HF prescriptions with drug discount cards increased from 2577 in 2009 to 64,750 in 2016. Increase in the number of prescriptions was also noted for all drug classes from 2009 to 2016. Overall 224,049 prescriptions for HF medications (59% of the total) benefited from the program resulting in total savings of $4,739,204 with a median cost saving of $9.30 (41.5%) per prescription. Conclusion: Use of a drug discount program resulted in cost savings on HF prescription medications (approximately $9 in savings per prescription) compared to the original cost charged by pharmacies. While these drug assistance programs may reduce financial burden, continued efforts should be made to improve adherence to medications and for better outcomes.

Pharmacology of vasodilators

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 180-184
Author(s):  
Stéphane Laurent
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Organic Nitrates ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Resistance Arteries ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Receptor Blockers ◽  
Small Resistance ◽  
Direct Acting

Antihypertensive and antianginal agents are differentially able to vasodilate small resistance arteries, large conducting arteries, and epicardial coronary arteries. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and alpha-adrenergic antagonists are not addressed here, since they are discussed in specific chapters. This chapter discusses the pharmacology of calcium channel blockers, nitrovasodilators, and direct-acting vasodilators. Dihydropyridines, such as nifedipine and amlodipine, are compared to the non-dihydropyridine agents verapamil and diltiazem. Organic nitrates, such as nitroglycerine and isosorbide dinitrate, are compared to inorganic nitrates, such as sodium nitroprusside. Molsidomine and nicorandil are also discussed. Finally, the pharmacology of direct-acting vasodilators focuses on minoxidil and hydralazine. Pharmacology of mechanisms of action is detailed to better understand therapeutic indications and side effects.

scholarly journals PRESCRIPTION PATTERN OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND/OR ANTIDIABETIC DRUGS IN ABUJA DISTRICT HOSPITALS

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
NKEIRUKA GRACE OSUAFOR ◽  
CHINWE VERONICA UKWE ◽  
MATTEW JEGBEFUME OKONTA
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
World Health ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Prescribing Indicators ◽  
Prescription Pattern ◽  
District Hospitals

Objective: The study aimed to describe the prescription pattern of cardiovascular and/or anti-diabetic drugs and adherence to the World Health Organization (WHO) prescribing indicators in Abuja District Hospitals. Methods: This descriptive retrospective study was carried out in Asokoro and Maitama District Hospitals Abuja. One thousand and nine prescriptions that contained a cardiovascular drug (CVD) and/or anti-diabetic drug issued between June 2017 and May 2018 from the Medical Outpatient Department were analyzed. Data were collected from the pharmacy electronic database, prescription pattern and adherence to WHO prescribing indicators were assessed. The analysis was done using descriptive statistics. Results were presented as percentages, means, and standard deviations. Results: The frequency of treatment was higher among women (58.8%) and the age group of 41–60 (54.8%). The average number of drugs prescribed was 3.3±1.6: the percentage of drugs prescribed in generic was (64%) and (78.8%) were from the Essential Drug List (EDL). Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB, 71.7%) and Biguanides (B, 92.4%) were the most prescribed CVD and anti-diabetic drug. The majority of the CVD (74.5%) and diabetes (63.6%) patients were on combination therapy. The most frequent CVD combination was CCB plus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (29.7%). Compared to men, the proportion of females taking one or more CVD (61.3%) or antidiabetic (56.4%) was higher. Conclusion: The prescribing indicators are not optimal in Abuja district hospitals. Women received more treatment for cardiovascular and diabetes diseases than men while the age range of 41-60 was more treated than other age groups.

scholarly journals Role of antihypertensive drugs in the treatment of migraine

2015 ◽  
Vol 156 (5) ◽  
pp. 179-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gergely Fehér ◽  
Gabriella Pusch
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Beta Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Receptor Blockers

The treatment of migraine depends on the frequency, severity and concomitant diseases. There are several specific drugs developed for migraine prevention in addition to the additive antimigraine effects of some other non-specific drugs. The aim of this literature-based review is to summarize the possible antimigraine properties of different antihypertensive agents (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, etc.) focusing on the possible side effects (avoidance of beta blockers in the absence of heart disease, possible antiparkinson effect of calcium channel blockers, additive effect of drugs modifying the renin-angiotensin system activity, etc.). Current evidence supports the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (mainly lisinopril) and angiotensin receptor blockers (mainly candesartan) for long-term migraine prevention and blood pressure control. Long-term beta-blocker treatment should be avoided in the absence of ischemic heart disease due to possible unfavourable cardiovascular effects. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(5), 179–185.

scholarly journals Arterial stiffness as a cardiovascular events risk marker and possibilities for its downregulation by contemporary antihypertensive medications

2014 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Sh Zagidullin ◽  
R Kh Zulkarneev ◽  
E S Scherbakova ◽  
Yu F Safina ◽  
Sh Z Zagidullin
Keyword(s):  
Arterial Stiffness ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Arterial Wall ◽  
Pulse Wave ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Wall Stiffness

Arterial blood pressure measured by Korotkov’s method is a non-valid predictor for possible cardiovascular events, which requires introduction of new methods of arterial hypertension diagnostics. Recently, the effect on arterial stiffness has become a very important characteristic of antihypertensive drugs overall efficacy. Evaluation of arterial stiffness (central aortic pressure, augmentation index and pulse wave velocity) contributes to more precise cardiovascular risk stratification and reflects target organ damage and the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment. In particular, pulse wave velocity exceeding 12 m/s is a significant risk factor of cardiovascular events. Arterial compliance can be determined by applanation tonometry, pulse wave shift at the carotid and femoral arteries, finger photoplethysmography, volume pulsoxymetry, echo-tracking, suprasystolic pulse waves recording method and cardio-ankle vascular index. Different effects of antihypertensive drugs on arterial stiffness at the same blood pressure reduction have been repeatedly shown. The article discusses the impact of the most commonly used antihypertensive drugs, including contemporary antihypertensive drugs combinations, on arterial stiffness. Effect of beta-blockers greatly varies depending on the characteristics of the drug, diuretics have neutral effect, calcium antagonists (especially amlodipine) decrease the pulse wave speed and arterial wall stiffness. Both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (more data for enalapril, perindopril and valsartan) were effective in decreasing arterial wall stiffness. A significant reduction in arterial wall stiffness was mainly found if antihypertensive drugs combinations were used, especially the combination of calcium antagonists and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers.

scholarly journals Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone-System inhibitor use in patients with COVID-19 infection and prevention of serious events: a cohort study in commercially insured patients in the US

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C Schneeweiss ◽  
Sandra Leonard ◽  
Andrew Weckstein ◽  
Sebastian Schneeweiss ◽  
Jeremy Rassen
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Pharmacy Claims ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Therapy Interventions

Objectives: There is a lack of clarity regarding the role of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) in interfering with the SARS-COV-2 binding on human cells and the resulting change in disease severity. We sought to assess the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and serious complications in current users of ARB or ACEi compared to users of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (dhpCCB). Design: Cohort study Setting: The analysis used de-identified, patient-level data from HealthVerity, linking longitudinal data from US medical and pharmacy claims, which contain information on inpatient or outpatient diagnoses, procedures and medication dispensing. Participants: We identified patients aged 40+ and free of chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were newly diagnosed COVID-19, between March 1, 2020 and May 30, 2020, and adherent to ACEi, ARB, or dhpCCB therapy. Interventions: Current use of an ACEi, ARB, or dhpCCB. Main outcome measures: We compared the 30-day risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and serious complications. Results: Of 24,708 patients identified, 7,571 were current users of an ARB, 8,484 of an ACEi, and 8,653 of a dhpCCB. The unadjusted 30-day risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 was 2.66% among ARB users, and 2.90% among ACEi users and 3.68% in dhpCCB users. In the PS-matched cohort, the risk of hospitalization among ARB users was 17% lower as compared to dhpCCB (RR=0.83; 0.68-1.00), and the risk among ACE users was 10% lower as compared to dhpCCB (RR=0.90; 0.76-1.07). When including patients with pre-existing CKD, the protective effect of ARB (RR= 0.74; 0.62-0.88) and ACEi (RR=0.84; 0.71-0.99) was more pronounced. Conclusions: This cohort study showed that neither ARB nor ACEi use increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease among those infected, and instead suggests that current use of ARB may offer a protective effect. This study found no evidence to support the discontinuation of ARB/ACEi therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document