ArticleBMC health services research2013
Economic impact of switching to fixed-dose combination therapy for Japanese hypertensive patients: a retrospective cost analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of increasing calcium channel blocker dose vs. adding a diuretic to treatment regimens for patients with uncontrolled hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2017Trial
- Daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure with a two-step switch from candesartan to olmesartan monotherapy and the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension (SEVICONTROL-2).Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2014Trial
- Triple drug antihypertensive single-pill combinations included as WHO essential medicines: an overview of efficacy, safety, and cost.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Review
- Effect of Combination Antihypertensive Pills on Blood Pressure Control.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Two-drug fixed-dose combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs as WHO essential medicines: An overview of efficacy, safety, and cost.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Review
- Treatment patterns of antihypertensive fixed-dose combinations according to age and number of agents prescribed: Retrospective analysis using a Japanese claims database.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2019Article
- How does prescribing for antihypertensive products stack up against guideline recommendations? An Australian population-based study (2006-2014).British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Bioequivalence of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin fixed-dose combination tablets compared with coadministration of the individual tablets to healthy subjects.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2015Article
- Influence of angiotensin II receptor blocker combination tablet prescription on drug number and cost.SAGE open medicine · 2014Article
- Efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan plus amlodipine in asian patients not adequately controlled on either monotherapy or on low-dose combination therapy.International journal of hypertension · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prescription of fixed-dose combinations (FDC) of antihypertensive drugs has increased rapidly since the relaxation of the prescription-term restriction. In this study, we used the opportunity of this policy change in Japan as an instrument to assess the causal impact of switching to FDC on hypertensive treatment costs.
methodsClaims data from 64 community pharmacies located in Tokyo were used to identify hypertensive patients under continuous treatment with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). Patients switching to FDC between December 2010 and April 2011 were compared to patients who did not receive FDC (control group). Changes in annual antihypertensive drug costs were compared using a difference-in-differences approach to adjust for patient characteristics and use of concomitant medication. Subpopulation analyses were also performed, taking into account pre-index treatment patterns and prescribers' characteristics.
resultsThere were 542 patients who switched to FDC and 9664 patients in the control group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups, except for antihypertensive drug use patterns before the policy change and prescribers' characteristics. The switch to FDC was associated with an annual saving of 10,420 yen (US$112.0) in antihypertensive drug costs. Approximately 20% of the FDC patients, however, switched from ARB alone, and their drug costs increased by 2376 yen (US$25.5).
conclusionsFor hypertensive patients who required ARB-based combination therapy, switching to FDC drugs had a significant cost-saving effect. However, the policy change of relaxing the prescription-term restriction could encourage aggressive treatment, i.e., switching to a combination therapy from monotherapy, regardless of medical conditions. Further research is required to evaluate the possible negative aspects of FDC drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.