BACKGROUND: In a multinational clinical trial, valsartan was statistically not inferior to captopril in reducing mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with signs of heart failure and/or left ventricular dysfunction. We conducted a prospective economic evaluation to compare within-trial resource use, costs, and quality of life in patients receiving valsartan, captopril, or both after MI. METHODS: We assigned country-specific unit costs to resource use data for 14703 patients and measured health-related quality of life in a subset of 4524 patients. We used the nonparametric bootstrap method to compare rates of resource use and costs, and a piecewise linear mixed-effects regression analysis to compare longitudinal measures of quality of life. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in rates of resource use between the valsartan and captopril groups. During an average follow-up of 2 years, total costs for patients receiving valsartan were significantly higher than for patients receiving captopril (USD 14103 vs USD 13038; 95% CI USD 369-USD 1875). The cost differential was caused primarily by the cost of the study medications (USD 1056 for valsartan vs USD 165 for captopril; 95% CI USD 867 to USD 912). Quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients at high risk after MI, the availability of generic captopril confers a cost advantage over valsartan because of lower medication costs. The difference will be smaller or nonexistent in settings where brand-name ACE inhibitors are prescribed.

OBJECTIVES. This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of captopril therapy for survivors of myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND. The recent randomized, controlled Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) trial showed that captopril therapy improves survival in survivors of myocardial infarction with an ejection fraction < or = 40%. The present ancillary study was designed to determine how the costs required to achieve this increase in survival compared with those of other medical interventions. METHODS. We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of captopril therapy in 50- to 80-year old survivors of myocardial infarction with an ejection fraction < or = 40%. Data on costs, utilities (health-related quality of life weights) and 4-year survival were obtained directly from the SAVE trial, and long-term survival was estimated using a Markov model. In one set of analyses, we assumed that the survival benefit associated with captopril therapy would persist beyond 4 years (persistent-benefit analyses), whereas in another set we assumed that captopril therapy incurred costs but no survival benefit beyond 4 years (limited-benefit analyses). RESULTS. In the limited-benefit analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness of captopril therapy ranged from $3,600/quality-adjusted life-year for 80-year old patients to $60,800/quality-adjusted life-year for 50-year old patients. In the persistent-benefit analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $3,700 to $10,400/quality-adjusted life-year, depending on age. The outcome was generally not sensitive to changes in estimates of variables when they were varied individually over wide ranges. In a "worst-case" analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for captopril therapy remained favorable ($8,700 to $29,200/quality-adjusted life-year) for 60- to 80-year old patients but were higher ($217,600/quality-adjusted life-year) for 50-year old patients. CONCLUSIONS. We conclude that the cost-effectiveness of captopril therapy for 50- to 80-year old survivors of myocardial infarction with a low ejection fraction compares favorably with other interventions for survivors of myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: The results of a recent clinical trial. The Effect of ACE inhibition on Diabetic Nephropathy, demonstrated that captopril reduced the rate of renal failure, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and death in patients with IDDM and nephropathy. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of captopril as a therapy in patients with IDDM as well as the potential savings for all patients with diabetes and nephropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing captopril (207 patients) with placebo (202 patients), whose purpose was to determine whether captopril has kidney-protecting properties independent of its effect on blood pressure in diabetic nephropathy to develop a model of medical treatment for patients before progression to ESRD. To model the course of illness after progression to ESRD and to extend the model to patients with NIDDM, we used data from the U.S. Renal Data System and published literature. Medical resource cost data were based predominantly upon Medicare reimbursement levels, published wholesale drug prices, and surveying health care providers. The economic model uses a payer perspective to estimate direct cost. The cost to society (indirect cost) associated with lost patient productivity due to ESRD was also estimated. Using this information, we predicted the costs incurred annually and over a lifetime if patients with IDDM and NIDDM and overt nephropathy were treated with either placebo or captopril. We also constructed a model of the overall prevalence of diabetic nephropathy to estimate the aggregate savings in total U.S. health care expenditures. RESULTS: Treatment with captopril resulted in an absolute direct cost savings or benefit of $32,550 per patient with IDDM over the course of a lifetime compared to treatment with placebo. For patients with NIDDM, the direct cost savings totaled $9,900 per patient. Absolute savings were found for indirect costs as well:$84,390 per patient with IDDM and $45,730 per patient with NIDDM. If captopril therapy were initiated in 1995 for patients with either IDDM or NIDDM and nephropathy, the aggregate health care cost savings (i.e. direct cost savings alone) would be $189 million a year for the year 1999 and $475 million a year in 2004, the present value of cumulative health care cost savings for these 10 years would be $2.4 billion. CONCLUSIONS: The use of captopril in diabetic nephropathy will provide significant savings in health care costs; in addition, it will result in savings in indirect cost, which reflects the broader societal benefit.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic efficiency of tight blood pressure control, with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or beta blockers, compared with less tight control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis incorporating within trial analysis and estimation of impact on life expectancy through use of the within trial hazards of reaching a defined clinical end point. Use of resources driven by trial protocol and use of resources in standard clinical practice were both considered. SETTING: 20 hospital based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. SUBJECTS: 1148 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes from UK prospective diabetes study randomised to tight control of blood pressure (n=758) or less tight control (n=390). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost effectiveness ratios based on (a) use of healthcare resources associated with tight control and less tight control and treatment of complications and (b) within trial time free from diabetes related end points, and life years gained. RESULTS: Based on use of resources driven by trial protocol, the incremental cost effectiveness of tight control compared with less tight control was cost saving. Based on use of resources in standard clinical practice, incremental cost per extra year free from end points amounted to pound1049 (costs and effects discounted at 6% per year) and pound434 (costs discounted at 6% per year and effects not discounted). The incremental cost per life year gained was pound720 (costs and effects discounted at 6% per year) and pound291 (costs discounted at 6% per year and effects not discounted). CONCLUSIONS: Tight control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes substantially reduced the cost of complications, increased the interval without complications and survival, and had a cost effectiveness ratio that compares favourably with many accepted healthcare programmes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and effects of preventive treatment with captopril compared with the current treatment policy in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after a myocardial infarction. METHODS: Estimates of effects are based on the results of the SAVE trial. Costs are estimated on the basis of current treatment patterns in four Dutch hospitals. All knowledge is incorporated in a mathematical model extrapolating the SAVE results to 20 years. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Captopril treatment is expected to increase survival at certain costs. The average additional costs per patient are estimated at DF1 2,491 in 4 years and at DF1 8,723 in 20 years of treatment. Costs per additional survivor after 4 years are estimated at DF1 69,126. After extrapolation of the results of the SAVE trial to 20 years, costs per life-year gained can be estimated at DF1 15,799. From univariate sensitivity analysis it appears that the results are highly sensitive for the costs of treatment with captopril and the occurrence and prevention of clinical heart failure. Varying all estimates randomly between upper and lower limits-in 5,000 simulations-an estimate of costs per life-year gained of DF1 15,729 is made for 20 years of treatment, with 95% of all estimates between DF10 and DF1 50, 000. On a national level, undiscounted costs are expected to increase up to approximately DF1 42 million annually during the first 40 years after introduction of the preventative strategy.

BACKGROUND: In a multinational clinical trial, valsartan was statistically not inferior to captopril in reducing mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with signs of heart failure and/or left ventricular dysfunction. We conducted a prospective economic evaluation to compare within-trial resource use, costs, and quality of life in patients receiving valsartan, captopril, or both after MI. METHODS: We assigned country-specific unit costs to resource use data for 14703 patients and measured health-related quality of life in a subset of 4524 patients. We used the nonparametric bootstrap method to compare rates of resource use and costs, and a piecewise linear mixed-effects regression analysis to compare longitudinal measures of quality of life. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in rates of resource use between the valsartan and captopril groups. During an average follow-up of 2 years, total costs for patients receiving valsartan were significantly higher than for patients receiving captopril (USD 14103 vs USD 13038; 95% CI USD 369-USD 1875). The cost differential was caused primarily by the cost of the study medications (USD 1056 for valsartan vs USD 165 for captopril; 95% CI USD 867 to USD 912). Quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients at high risk after MI, the availability of generic captopril confers a cost advantage over valsartan because of lower medication costs. The difference will be smaller or nonexistent in settings where brand-name ACE inhibitors are prescribed.

AIMS: To compare the net cost of a tight blood pressure control policy with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (captopril) or beta blocker (atenolol) in patients with Type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on outcomes and resources used in a randomized controlled trial and assumptions regarding the use of these therapies in a general practice setting. SETTING: Twenty United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Hospital-based clinics in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. SUBJECTS: Hypertensive patients (n = 758) with Type 2 diabetes (mean age 56 years, mean blood pressure 159/94 mmHg), 400 of whom were allocated to the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor captopril and 358 to the beta blocker atenolol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy and mean cost per patient. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in life expectancy between groups. The cost per patient over the trial period was 6485 UK pounds in the captopril group, compared with 5550 UK pounds in the atenolol group, an average cost difference of 935 UK pounds (95% confidence interval 188 UK pounds, 1682 UK pounds). This 14% reduction arose partly because of lower drug prices, and also because of significantly fewer and shorter hospitalizations in the atenolol group, and despite higher antidiabetic drug costs in the atenolol group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of hypertensive patients with Type 2 diabetes using atenolol or captopril was equally effective. However, total costs were significantly lower in the atenolol group. Diabet. Med. 18, 438-444 (2001)

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend treating patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus with ACE inhibitors after the onset of microalbuminuria. Recent clinical trials have shown ACE inhibitors can affect the development of nephropathy when initiated prior to the onset of microalbuminuria. Our objective is to examine the cost effectiveness of treating adults aged over 20 years with an ACE inhibitor (captopril) immediately following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes versus treating them after the onset of microalbuminuria. DESIGN: Using a semi-Markov model, we calculated four main outcome measures: lifetime direct medical costs (discounted), QALYs, cumulative incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and number of days of ESRD over a lifetime. Medical costs are in 1999 US dollars. SETTING: All analyses were from the viewpoint of a single US payer responsible for all direct medical costs, including screening for microalbuminuria, ACE inhibitor treatment (captopril), management of major diabetic complications, and routine annual medical costs not specific to diabetes. METHODS: We applied the model to a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 persons newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Distribution of sex and race/ethnicity within the cohort is representative of the general US population. RESULTS: We estimated that the incremental cost of early use of captopril for the average adult with type 1 diabetes is USD 27,143 per QALY. This level varies considerably with age and glycaemic level. When the age at onset of diabetes is 20 years and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) level is 9%, the cost-effectiveness ratio is USD 13,814 per QALY. When the age at onset is 25 years and HbA(1c) level is 7%, the cost-effectiveness ratio is USD 39,530 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This model, with its underlying assumptions and data, suggests that early treatment with captopril provides modest benefit at reasonable cost effectiveness, from the US single-payer perspective, in the prevention of ESRD compared with delaying treatment until diagnosis of microalbuminuria. Early treatment with other ACE inhibitors will provide similar cost effectiveness if they have equivalent efficacy, compliance and price per dose. Treatment may be considered among patients at age 20 years with new onset of type 1 diabetes. This conclusion is sensitive to the extent that ACE inhibitors delay onset of microalbuminuria. Other factors such as the patient's age and glycaemic level must be considered when deciding to initiate early treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical support that conversion from captopril to lisinopril at a daily oral dosage ratio of 5:1 maintains comparable therapeutic efficacy, and to estimate retrospectively cost savings because of conversion from captopril to lisinopril therapy at the study site and with the associated overall drug conversion program instituted by Kaiser Permanente. DESIGN: An open-label, randomized, prospective, parallel study was performed in 56 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. In a 4-week preroandomization period, oral maintenance dosages of captopril were established. Patients then were randomly assigned either to continue taking captopril or to change to lisinopril at an initial conversion ratio of captopril 5 mg to lisinopril 1 mg. Blood pressures were evaluated 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks postrandomization. If necessary, dosages were adjusted to maintain adequate efficacy (i.e., systolic pressure < 160 mm Hg and diastolic pressure < 90 mm Hg in the prerandomization period; diastolic pressure < 90 mm Hg postrandomization). Cost savings for the study site and to the overall program with respect to conversion from captopril were defined as the difference between the estimated drug costs and the drug costs projected if the conversion had not been made. SETTING: Woodland Hills Medical Center of the Southern California Region of Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The measure for the retrospective cost savings analysis was estimated cost savings based on the number of prescriptions written for captopril and lisinopril from December 1988 through December 1993, and the average wholesale price. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program who were diagnosed with mild-to-moderate hypertension and whose hypertension was controlled by captopril alone. Retrospectively, mild-to-moderate hypertension would have been classified as stages 1-3, based on the current guidelines of the Fifth Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. RESULTS: The blood pressures of patients in whom captopril therapy was switched to lisinopril therapy were maintained throughout the entire study within the defined acceptable limits of control when the conversion was initiated at a daily oral dosage ratio of 5:1. The final dosage conversion ratio was not significantly different statistically from the theoretical dosage conversion ratio of 5:1. CONCLUSIONS: The conversion from captopril (in equally divided daily doses) to lisinopril (once daily) at a dosage ratio of 5:1 maintained comparable control of mild-to-moderate hypertension with no increase in adverse effects. In addition, the cost savings associated with an overall drug conversion program were substantial, and the conversion provided a preferred once-daily dosing regimen.