Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Costs of Eprosartan versus Diuretics for Treatment of Hypertension in a Geriatric Population

An Observational, Open-Label, Multicentre Study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Diuretics are considered to be agents of first choice when treating hypertension in the elderly because of their clinical efficacy and, in particular, their low cost. Indeed, the latter consideration has been used by health resource managers to promote the use of diuretics. However, when considering the costs of treating hypertension in a population it is also necessary to assess the adverse effects that diuretics produce, particularly in elderly people.

Objective

To compare the overall expenditure associated with the treatment of hypertension (specifically the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist eprosartan vs diuretics) in an elderly population, taking into consideration not only the drug acquisition costs but also the adverse effects of treatment and the costs associated with such adverse effects.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational, nonrandomized, open-label, multicentre study based in eight community health centres and the Hypertension Unit of the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain. The study included 220 hypertensive geriatric outpatients (males and females aged ≥65 years) referred from general practitioners and the Hypertension Unit, with a mean age of 71.8 years and distributed into two groups: one (n = 90) treated with diuretics and the other (n= 130) treated with eprosartan. Following an initial clinical assessment of patients at the beginning of the study, monitoring of treatment continued for 1 year with follow-up consultations scheduled for 3, 6 and 12 months. Both the costs relating to acquisition of the drugs and the costs derived from secondary adverse effects of drug treatment were included in the analysis.

Results

The response to the antihypertensive therapy was similar in both groups. In patients taking diuretics, adverse events resulted in increased use of healthcare resources because of urinary incontinence, purchase of adsorbents, hyponatraemia and the need to admit two patients to hospital. The patient/day cost was €1.05 for the group treated with diuretics and €0.98 for the group treated with eprosartan (year of costing 2006).

Conclusion

In the geriatric population, the acquisition cost of the prescribed diuretics is not representative of the actual antihypertensive treatment expenditure. According to the results obtained in our study, the overall costs of eprosartan therapy were no different to those of diuretics, despite the fact that eprosartan had a higher acquisition cost. This is consistent with a more favourable safety profile for eprosartan, which may possibly contribute to improved prescription compliance. This conclusion should be taken into consideration when evaluating economic restrictions on the use of drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Joffres MR, Hamet P, McLean DR, et al. Distribution of blood pressure and hypertension in Canada and the United States. Am J Hypertension 2001; 14: 1099–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. El papel de los medicamentos en el tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial y la prevención del riesgo cardiovascular. El valor del Medicamento. Madrid: Fundación Farmaindustria DL, 2002 Sep: M-37123-2002

  3. Wong ND, Thakral G, Franklin SS, et al. Preventing heart disease by controlling hypertension. Impact of hypertensive subtype, stage, age, and sex. Am Heart J 2003; 145: 888–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, et al., for the Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies [published erratum appears in Lancet 2003; 361: 1060]. Lancet 2002; 360: 1903–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Staessen JA, Gasowski J, Wang JG, et al. Risks of untreated and treated isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: meta-analysis of outcome trials [published erratum appears in Lancet 2001; 357: 724]. Lancet 2000; 355: 865–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tu K, Campbell N, Chen Z, et al. Thiazide diuretics for hypertension: prescribing practices and predictors of use in 194 761 elderly patients with hypertension. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2006; 4(2): 161–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 INC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289: 2560–72

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Messerly FH, Grossman E, Goldbourt U. Are beta-blockers efficacious as first line therapy for hypertension in the elderly? A systematic review. JAMA 1998; 279: 1903–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. NHS. Hypertension: managing adult patients in primary care. NICE [online]. Available from URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG34 [Accessed 2004 Jan 1]

  10. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA 2002; 288: 2998–3007

  11. Gross P, Palm C. Thiazides: do they kill? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005; 20: 2299–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharabi Y, Illan R, Kamari Y, et al. Diuretic induced hyponatraemia in elderly hypertensive women. J Human Hypertension 2002; 16: 631–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weir MR, Flack JM, Applegate WB. Tolerability and quality of life and hypertensive therapy: the case for low-dose diuretics. Am J Med 1996; 101: 83S–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265: 3255–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hodgson TA, Cai L. Medical care expenditures for hypertension, its complications, and its comorbidities. Med Care 2001; 39(6): 599–615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pardell H, Tresserras R, Armario P, et al. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the management of hypertension. Drugs 2000; 59Suppl. 2: 13–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: a cost of illness model. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1949–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Otero MJ, Martin RM, Robles MD, et al. Errores de medicación en Farmacia Hospitalaria, 3rd ed. Madrid: SEFH, 2002: 713–47

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug related morbidity and mortality updating the cost of illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001; 41: 192–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodríguez-Monguio R, Otero MJ, Rovira J. Assessing the economic impact of adverse drug effects. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 623–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Catálogo de Especialidades Farmacéuticas del Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos. Madrid: de Official General Council of Pharmaceutics, 2005

  22. Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hypertension 2003; 42: 1206

    Google Scholar 

  23. De Dios Perrino S. Incidencia y tipos de acontecimientos adversos por medicamentos en personas mayores de 65 años que ingresan en un Servicio de Medicina Interna. Factores de riesgo y repercusión económica [doctoral thesis]. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  24. SOIKOS. Base de datos de costes sanitarios. Versión 2.2. Barcelona: SOIKOS, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  25. Padwal R, Laupacis A. Antihypertensive therapy and incidence of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 247–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Palmer BF, Gates JR, Lader M. Causes and management of hyponatremia. Ann Pharmacotherapy 2003; 37: 1694–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Garovic V, Textor SC. Renovascular hypertension: current concepts. Semin Nephrol 2005 Jul; 25(4): 261–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Morganti A. Should a diuretic always be the first choice in patients with essential hypertension? The case for no. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16: S70–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Frazier JM, Kane KY. ACE inhibitors are better than diuretics for treatment of hypertension in the elderly. J Fam Pract 2003 Jun; 52(6): 436–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zillich AJ, Grag J, Basu GL, et al. Thiazide diuretics, potassium and the development of diabetes: a quantitative review. Hypertension 2006; 48(2): 219–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Franse LV, Pahor M, Di Bari M, et al. Hypokalemia associated with diuretic use and cardiovascular events in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program. Hypertension 2000; 35: 1025–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chow KM, Szeto CC, Wong TYH, et al. Risk factors for thiazide induced hyponatraemia. Q J Med 2003; 96: 911–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Clayton JA, Rodgers S, Blakey J, et al. Thiazide diuretic prescription and electrolyte abnormalities in primary care. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 61(1): 87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson RJ, Chung HM, Kluge R, et al. Hyponatremia: a prospective analysis of its epidemiology and the pathogenetic role of vasopressin. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102: 164–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Mulrow C, Lau J, Cornell J, et al. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000028

    Google Scholar 

  36. Adrogué HJ. Consequences of inadequate management of hyponatremia. Am J Nephrol 2005; 25: 240–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chin MH, Goldman L. Correlates of major complications or death in patients admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1814–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Krumholz HM, Chen YT, Bradford WD, et al. Variations in and correlates of length of stay in academic hospitals among patients with heart failure resulting from systolic dysfunction. Am J Manag Care 1999; 5: 715–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Boscoe A, Paramore C, Verbalis JG. Cost of illness of hyponatremia in the United States. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006; 4: 10 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/4/1/10 [Accessed 2009 May 2]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chin MH, Goldman L. Correlates of major complications or death in patients admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1814–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mussi C, Ungar A, Salvioli G, et al. Orthostatic hypotension as cause of syncope in patients older than 65 years admitted to emergency departments for transient loss of consciousness. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2009 Jul; 64(7): 801–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aronow WS. Treating hypertension in older adults: safety considerations. Drug Saf 2009; 32(2): 111–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Carbone LD, Johnson KC, Bush AJ, et al. Loop diuretic use and fracture in postmenopausal women: findings from the Women’s Health Initiative. Arch Intern Med 2009 Jan 26; 169(2): 132–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Formiga F, Lopez-Soto A, Duaso E, et al. Characteristics of falls producing hip fractures in nonagenarians. J Nutr Health Aging 2008 Nov; 12(9): 664–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Gankam Kengne F, Andres C, Sattar L, et al. Mild hyponatremia and risk of fracture in the ambulatory elderly. Q J Med 2008 Jul; 101(7): 583–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Levencron S, Kimyagarov S. Frequency and reasons for falling among residents of the geriatric center [in Hebrew]. Harefuah 2007 Aug; 146(8): 589–93, 647

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Payne KA, Caro J. Evaluating the true cost of hypertension management: evidence from actual practice. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004; 4(2): 179–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Macias Núñez J, Robles NR, Herrera Pérez del Villar J. Recommendations for the detection and treatment of hypertension in the elderly. Port J Nephrol Hypert 2007; 21(4): 269–79

    Google Scholar 

  49. Khan NA, McAlister FA, Lewanczuk RZ, et al. The 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension. Part II: therapy. Can J Cardiol 2005 Jun; 21(8): 657–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lindholm L. Long-term metabolic effects of a candesartan vs hydrochlorothiazide based antihypertensive treatment [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16(5): A27

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was performed as part of the PhD requirements for Joaquin Alvarez Gregori, who is working as an internal resident at the Teaching Unit of Family and Community Medicine (UDMFYC) and the University Hospital of Salamanca. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the MEFASA (Family Doctors from Salamanca) group, that is, Drs J.L. Rodríguez, M.J. Moro, F. Sánchez, J.C. Cuadrado, F. Sanz, F. Díez, A. Refoyo, J.F. De Vega, J. Antonio, M. Vicente, J.A. Galan, M. García, J. Mateos, P. Herás and M.C. Rodríguez, for their contributions to the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of study patients, and to Dr M. Hanna for his collaboration in the preparation of the manuscript. We are also grateful to Pharmaceutical Ferrer Grupo for its help in collecting the data for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Family and Community Medicine Unit, Casto Prieto Health Centre, Salamanca, Spain

    Joaquin A. Alvarez Gregori

  2. Nephrology Department, University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    Juan F. Macías Nuñez

  3. Pharmacy Department, University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    Alfonso Domínguez-Gil

Authors
  1. Joaquin A. Alvarez Gregori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan F. Macías Nuñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alfonso Domínguez-Gil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquin A. Alvarez Gregori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alvarez Gregori, J.A., Macías Nuñez, J.F. & Domínguez-Gil, A. Costs of Eprosartan versus Diuretics for Treatment of Hypertension in a Geriatric Population. Drugs Aging 26, 617–626 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11316370-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11316370-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation