Key result
Candesartan reduced trough diastolic blood pressure by 1.96 mmHg (95% CI -2.40 to -1.51) more than losartan, but this small difference was not considered cost-effective for the UK NHS.
Why the study?
Does candesartan improve blood pressure lowering and cardiovascular outcomes compared to losartan in adults with hypertension or heart failure?
Meta-Analysis
Does candesartan improve blood pressure lowering and cardiovascular outcomes compared to losartan in adults with hypertension or heart failure?
Mean Difference: -1.96 (95% CI -2.4–-1.51)
While candesartan reduces blood pressure slightly more than losartan, the difference is unlikely to be cost-effective, supporting the use of generic losartan as the preferred ARB.
Favors generic losartan as preferred ARB; confirms small BP difference lacks cost-effectiveness for UK practice.
The UK National Health Service (NHS) currently spends in excess of £250 million per annum on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure; with candesartan currently dominating the market. With the recent introduction of generic losartan, we set out to directly compare the branded market leader to its now cheaper alternative. The primary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of candesartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension and chronic heart failure, respectively. The secondary objective was to model their comparative incremental cost-effectiveness in a UK NHS setting. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Hypertension and Heart Group's specialist register, Medline (1950-February 2010), and Embase (1980-February 2010) were included in the search strategy. Selection criteria were randomised studies of candesartan versus losartan in adults (> 18 years). The main outcome measures were as follows: Hypertension: mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP. Heart failure: composite of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for management of heart failure. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eight (three of which met inclusion criteria) and zero trials compared candesartan directly with losartan in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, respectively. A between-treatment difference of -1.96 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.40 to -1.51] for trough diastolic BP and -3.00 mmHg (95% CI -3.79 to -2.22) for trough systolic BP in favour of candesartan was observed. Based on this differential, a 10-year Markov model estimates the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to exceed £40,000 for using candesartan in place of generic losartan. Candesartan reduces BP to a slightly greater extent when compared with losartan, however, such difference is unlikely to be cost-effective based on current acquisition costs, perceived NHS affordability thresholds and use of combination regimens. We could find no robust evidence supporting the superiority of candesartan over losartan in the treatment of heart failure. We therefore recommend using generic losartan as the ARB of choice which could save the UK NHS approximately £200 million per annum in drug costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grosso et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis in essential hypertension and chronic heart failure. Candesartan vs. Losartan was evaluated on mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP (MD -1.96, 95% CI -2.40 to -1.51). Candesartan reduced trough diastolic blood pressure by 1.96 mmHg (95% CI -2.40 to -1.51) more than losartan, but this small difference was not considered cost-effective for the UK NHS.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: