Report Calls For Discounts On Heart Failure Treatments
The report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review also examines the cost-effectiveness of two new treatments for congestive heart failure. Elsewhere, Amgen looks for FDA approval of a once-a-month version of its cholesterol-lowering drug, Repatha.
Reuters:
Novartis Heart Failure Drug Should Have 17 Percent Discount: Analysis
A new Novartis AG drug to treat heart failure should cost 17 percent less than its list price of $4,560 per year to keep health costs in line with growth in the overall U.S. economy, according to the nonprofit ICER. In a draft report released on Friday, the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review set its "value-based" price for Entresto at $3,799 annually. The independent ICER evaluates clinical and cost effectiveness of new medicines. (Beasley, 9/11)
Kaiser Health News:
New Heart Failure Treatments Would Drive Up Short-Term Health Spending, Report Says
Two new treatments for congestive heart failure cost too much in the short term and would drive up spending by insurers and government programs, a nonprofit group said in an analysis released Friday, just days after the same researchers took similar aim at expensive new cholesterol drugs. The treatments – one a $17,750 sensor implanted in the pulmonary artery and the other a $4,600-a-year prescription pill – are the first new treatments in more than a decade for heart failure, a life-threatening condition. (Appleby, 9/14)
Reuters:
Amgen Seeks FDA Approval For Monthly Dosing Option For Repatha
Amgen Inc said on Friday it had asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve a monthly single-dosing option for its recently approved cholesterol drug, Repatha. The FDA approved Repatha - one of two expensive treatments in a new class of injectable "bad cholesterol"-lowering drugs called PCSK9 inhibitors - in late August. A similar drug from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc and Sanofi SA, called Praluent, was approved in July. (9/11)
And a new study pushes for more aggressive treatment of high blood pressure --
The Associated Press:
Study Backs More Aggressive Treatment Of High Blood Pressure
Aiming lower saves more lives when it comes to controlling high blood pressure, says a major new study that could spur doctors to more aggressively treat patients over 50. Patients who got their blood pressure well below today's usually recommended level significantly cut their risk of heart disease and death, the National Institutes of Health announced Friday. (9/11)
The New York Times:
Lower Blood Pressure Guidelines Could Be ‘Lifesaving,’ Federal Study Says
For years doctors have been uncertain what the optimal goal should be for patients with high blood pressure. The aim of course is to bring it down, but how far and how aggressively remained a mystery. There are trade-offs — risks and side effects from drugs — and there were lingering questions about whether older patients needed somewhat higher blood pressure to push blood to the brain. The study found that patients who were assigned to reach a systolic blood pressure goal below 120 — far lower than current guidelines of 140, or 150 for people over 60 — had their risk of heart attacks, heart failure and strokes reduced by a third and their risk of death reduced by nearly a quarter. (Kolata, 9/11)
The Washington Post:
Federal Researchers Urge Older Adults To Aim For Much Lower Blood Pressure
The new research advises people with high blood pressure to keep their “systolic” pressure — the top number in the reading that health-care providers routinely tell patients — at 120 or below. Clinical guidelines have commonly called for systolic blood pressure of 140 for healthy adults and 130 for adults with kidney disease or diabetes. Physicians have complained that there was no clear evidence for any specific standard on systolic blood pressure, compelling them to decide on their own how aggressive to be in treating the condition. Now there is a number, and it is significantly lower than the current targets. (Bernstein, 9/12)
