Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 211–220 | Cite as

Economic Benefits of Treating High-Risk Hypertension with Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists (Blockers)

  • Antonio CocaEmail author
Review Article


Hypertension is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular disease and represents a major health and economic burden. Most patients with high-or very high-risk hypertension have multiple cardiovascular risk factors with or without accompanying subclinical organ damage or established cardiovascular or renal disease. Patients with severe hypertension or with moderate hypertension and one to two additional risk factors have absolute 10-year risks of cardiovascular disease of 21–30% and 15–20%, respectively. Current European treatment guidelines recommend that antihypertensive therapy be initiated rapidly and aggressively in patients with high-risk hypertension. Most patients require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve the strict blood pressure target of <130/80 mmHg. This article reviews the existing cost-effectiveness data on the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonists (blockers) [ARBs] in patients with high-risk hypertension. Aggressive ARB treatment of patients in the early (microalbuminuric) stages of diabetic nephropathy has a significant renoprotective effect, delaying the onset of overt (proteinuric) nephropathy. By slowing the progression of these patients to end-stage renal disease, substantial cost savings can be made. There is a paucity of cost-effectiveness data regarding the use of fixed-dose ARB plus thiazide diuretic combination therapies. Longitudinal cost-benefit studies of this attractive and efficacious first-line treatment option are needed.


Losartan Valsartan Telmisartan Irbesartan Severe Hypertension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author would like to thank Natalie Barker of Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Communications (funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb) for her assistance in writing and editing this review. The author has received research grants and honoraria for advisory tasks from sanofi-aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.


  1. 1.
    Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al., and the Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet 2002; 360: 1347–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, et al. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 2005 Jan 15-21; 365(9455): 217–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Degli Esposti L, Valpiani G. Pharmacoeconomic burden of undertreating hypertension. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22(14): 907–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007 Jun; 25(6): 1105–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montalescot G, Collet JP. Preserving cardiac function in the hypertensive patient: why renal parameters hold the key. Eur Heart J 2005 Dec; 26(24): 2616–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, et al. An updated coronary risk profile: a statement for health professionals. Circulation 1991 Jan; 83(1): 356–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martín-Baranera M, Campo C, Coca A, et al. Stratification and degree of control of cardiovascular risk factors in hypertensive Spanish population: results of the DICOPRESS study [in Spanish]. Med Clin (Barc) 2007; 129(7): 247–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conroy RM, Pyorala K, Fitzgerald AP, et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003 Jun; 24(11): 987–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the Fourth Working Party of the British Hypertension Society, 2004-BHS IV. J Hum Hypertens 2004 Mar; 18(3): 139–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Council of the European Union. 2586th Council Meeting —Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs. Luxembourg 2004 Jun 1–2 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Jun 13]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leal J, Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray A, et al. Economic burden of cardiovascular diseases in the enlarged European Union. Eur Heart J 2006 Jul; 27(13): 1610–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Heart Association. Heart disease and stroke statistics: 2005 update [online]. Available from URL: httpV/www.americanheart. org/downloadable/heart/1105390918119HDSStats 2005Update.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 13]Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development. OECD health data 2004: a comparative analysis of 30 countries. 2nd ed. [online]. Available from URL: health/healthdata/ [Accessed 2007 Jun 13]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiiskinen U, Vartiainen E, Puska P, et al. Long-term cost and life-expectancy consequences of hypertension. J Hypertens 1998 Aug; 16(8): 1103–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Puska P, Tuomilehto J, Nissinen A, et al., editors. The North Karelia project: 20 year results and experiences. Helsinki: The National Public Health Institute (KTL), 1995Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roca-Cusachs A, Dalfo A, Badia X, et al. Relation between clinical and therapeutic variables and quality of life in hypertension. J Hypertens 2001 Oct; 19(10): 1913–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawrence WF, Fryback DG, Martin PA, et al. Health status and hypertension: a population-based study. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(11): 1239–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimenäs ES, Wiklund IK, Dahlöf CG, et al. Differences in the subjective well-being and symptoms of normotensives, borderline hypertensives and hypertensives. J Hypertens 1989; 7(11): 885–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 2004 Jun 19; 363(9426): 2022–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005 Sep 10–16; 366(9489): 895–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003 May 21; 289(19): 2560–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neutel JM, Franklin SS, Oparil S, et al. Efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy as initial treatment for rapid control of severe hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2006 Dec; 8(12): 850–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salerno CM, Demopoulos L, Mukherjee R, et al. Combination angiotensin receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide as initial therapy in the treatment of patients with severe hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2004 Nov; 6(11): 614–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wellington K, Faulds DM. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and place in the management of hypertension. Drugs 2002; 62(13): 1983–2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bonner G, Fuchs W. Fixed combination of candesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in patients with severe primary hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin 2004 May; 20(5): 597–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sega R. Efficacy and safety of eprosartan in severe hypertension. Eprosartan Multinational Study Group. Blood Press 1999; 8(2): 114–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neutel JM, Smith DH, Reilly PA. The efficacy and safety of telmisartan compared to enalapril in patients with severe hypertension. Int J Clin Pract 1999 Apr–May; 53(3): 175–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stumpe KO. Olmesartan compared with other angiotensin II receptor antagonists: head-to-head trials. Clin Ther 2004; 26Suppl. A: A33–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruggenenti P, Fassi A, Ilieva AP, et al. Preventing microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2004 Nov 4; 351(19): 1941–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atkins RC, Briganti EM, Lewis JB, et al. Proteinuria reduction and progression to renal failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overt nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis 2005 Feb; 45(2): 281–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parving HH, Lehnert H, Brochner-Mortensen J, et al. The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001 Sep 20; 345(12): 870–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Michaels JA. Improving NICE’s social value judgments. BMJ 2006 Jan 7; 332(7532): 48–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For End-point reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002 Mar 23; 359(9311): 995–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McInnes G, Burke TA, Carides G. Cost-effectiveness of losartan-based therapy in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: a UK-based economic evaluation of the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. J Hum Hypertens 2006 Jan; 20(1): 51–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Herman WH, Shahinfar S, Carides GW, et al. Losartan reduces the costs associated with diabetic end-stage renal disease: the RENAAL study economic evaluation. Diabetes Care 2003 Mar; 26(3): 683–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Palmer AJ, Annemans L, Roze S, et al. Irbesartan is projected to be cost and life saving in a Spanish setting for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and microalbuminuria. Kidney Int 2005 Jan; 93 Suppl.: S52–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rodby RA, Chiou CF, Borenstein J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of irbesartan in the treatment of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Clin Ther 2003 Jul; 25(7): 2102–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palmer AJ, Valentine WJ, Tucker DM, et al. A French cost-consequence analysis of the renoprotective benefits of irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin 2006 Nov; 22(11): 2095–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. Health economic implications of irbesartan plus conventional antihypertensive medications versus conventional blood pressure control alone in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and renal disease in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2006 May 27; 136(21-22): 346–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Palmer AJ, Tucker DM, Valentine WJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of irbesartan in diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review of published studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005 Jun; 20(6): 1103–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Palmer AJ, Annemans L, Roze S, et al. An economic evaluation of the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) in a UK setting. J Hum Hypertens 2004 Oct; 18(10): 733–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Palmer AJ, Chen R, Valentine WJ, et al. Cost-consequence analysis in a French setting of screening and optimal treatment of nephropathy in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 2006 Feb; 32(1): 69–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McMurray JJ, Andersson FL, Stewart S, et al. Resource utilization and costs in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme. Eur Heart J 2006 Jun; 27(12): 1447–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reed SD, Friedman JY, Velazquez EJ, et al. Multinational economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Am Heart J 2004 Jul; 148(1): 122–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Majani G, Giardini A, Opasich C, et al. Effect of valsartan on quality of life when added to usual therapy for heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. J Card Fail 2005 May; 11(4): 253–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reed SD, Radeva JI, Weinfurt KP, et al. Resource use, costs, and quality of life among patients in the multinational Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT). Am Heart J 2005 Aug; 150(2): 323–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hilleman DE, Wurdeman RL, Lenz TL. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of fixed-dose combination of angiotensin-II receptor blockers with and without hydrochlorothiazide. Am J Hypertens 2001; 14Suppl. 1: A112–A3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Boersma C, Atthobari J, Gansevoort RT, et al. Pharmacoeconomics of angiotensin II antagonists in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy: implications for decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(6): 523–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Teo K, Yusuf S, Sleight P, et al. Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of 2 large, simple, randomized trials evaluating telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination in high-risk patients: the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND) trials. Am Heart J 2004 Jul; 148(1): 52–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rudd P. Compliance with antihypertensive therapy: raising the bar of expectations. Am J Manag Care 1998; 4: 957–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cramer JA, Benedict A, Muszbek N, et al. The significance of compliance and persistence in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia: a review. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 62(1): 76–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    After the diagnosis: adherence and persistence with hypertensive therapy. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11 (13 Suppl.): S395-9Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mazzaglia G, Mantovani LG, Sturkenboom MC, et al. Patterns of persistence with antihypertensive medications in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in Italy: a retrospective cohort study in primary care. J Hypertens 2005 Nov; 23(11): 2093–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mourad JJ, Waeber B, Zannad F, et al. Comparison of different therapeutic strategies in hypertension: a low-dose combination of perindopril/indapamide versus a sequential monotherapy or a stepped-care approach. J Hypertens 2004 Dec; 22(12): 2379–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002 Dec 18; 288(23): 2981–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al. RENAAL study investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. New Engl J Med 2001; 345(12): 861–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al. Collaborative study group. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. New Engl J Med 2001; 345(12): 851–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Medicine and Dermatology, Hypertension Unit, Hospital ClínicoUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations