Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists Alone and Combined with Hydrochlorothiazide

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs) and thiazide diuretics have an accepted place in the management of hypertension. Most patients require combination therapy with two or more drugs to adequately control blood pressure to targets recommended by European and international guidelines. ARBs and the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide have complementary modes of action. Fixed-dose combinations of an ARB and low-dose hydrochlorothiazide provide a convenient and effective treatment option for patients who do not achieve blood pressure targets on monotherapy, without compromising the placebo-like tolerability of ARBs. In Europe, fixed-dose combinations with hydrochlorothiazide currently are available for the ARBs candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. Recently, a number of studies have focused on the use of ARBs in monotherapy and in combination therapy, in conditions including congestive heart failure, post-myocardial infarction management, hypertension with cardiovascular risk factors, and diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathy. Evidence from these studies suggests a beneficial role beyond the antihypertensive effect of these therapies in providing protection against cardiovascular, renovascular, and cerebrovascular events.     

Role of valsartan and other angiotensin receptor blocking agents in the management of cardiovascular disease.

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system by angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces mortality and morbidity in patients post-myocardial infarction as well as in chronic heart failure and hypertension. ACE inhibitors also have a well-established place in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been developed to produce a more complete blockade of the actions of angiotensin II as compared to other drug classes, as well as an improved side effect profile. This article provides an overview of the place of ARBs in general and of the ARB valsartan in particular, and draws comparisons to ACE inhibitors in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases.     

Antihypertensive Effects of Olmesartan Compared with Other Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

Objectives: Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in hypertensive patients. Olmesartan is the seventh angiotensin receptor blocker licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan medoxomil in comparison with other ARBs. Data Sources: Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of olmesartan versus other ARBs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed (up to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to July 2010), SinoMed (up to July 2010), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2010). Review Methods: Pertinent studies were selected through extensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SinoMed. Two of the authors abstracted data from the identified studies independently. Criteria for inclusion in our meta-analyses were randomized clinical trials in which patients were receiving an ARB and outcome data for blood pressure reduction or the incidence of adverse events were available. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of data from all RCTs meeting the criteria were performed. Our meta-analysis was undertaken according to the Quality of Reporting Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement. Results: Twenty-two studies with data from 4892 patients were considered for analyses. Olmesartan provided greater diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reductions compared with losartan (DBP: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59, 2.62; SBP: 95% CI 0.46, 5.92). Olmesartan provided greater SBP reductions compared with valsartan (95% CI 0.29, 3.16). Similar blood pressure response rates and incidence of adverse events were found with losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and irbesartan. Conclusion: Olmesartan provides better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan and valsartan and has no association with an increased risk of adverse events in comparison with losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and irbesartan.     

A retrospective study of the effects of angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in diabetic nephropathy

Objective:Till date, several studies have compared angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in terms of delaying the progression of diabetic nephropathy. But the superiority of one drug class over the other remains unsettled. This study has retrospectively compared the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in diabetic nephropathy. The study aims to compare ACE inhibitors and ARBs in terms of delaying or preventing the progression of diabetic nephropathy, association between blood pressure (B.P) and urinary albumin and also B.P and serum creatinine with ACE inhibitor and ARB, know the percentage of hyperkalemia in patients of diabetic nephropathy receiving ACE inhibitor or ARB.Results:The results reflect that ARBs (Losartan and Telmisartan) when compared to ACE inhibitor (Ramipril) are more effective in terms of delaying the progression of diabetic nephropathy and also in providing renoprotection. Also, ARBs have the property of simultaneously decreasing the systolic B.P and albuminuria when compared to ACE inhibitor (Ramipril).Conclusions:Angiotensin receptor blockers are more renoprotective than ACE inhibitors and also provide better cardioprotection.KEY WORDS: Angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, diabetes, diabetic nephropathy     

Switch strategies in the management of hypertension: a cost minimisation analysis of angiotensin receptor blocker based regimen

ABSTRACT

Background and objective: Budgetary pressures within health care systems have led many health care providers to consider the switching of patients on long term anti­hypertensive medication to agents with the lowest acquisition price. The long term success of this strategy hinges on price differentials remaining stable, an assumption that may not be valid in drug classes where patent expiry times vary. The treatment of hypertension using angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) represents just such a case. The present study, therefore, modelled the 5-year cost consequences of treatment based on losartan, candesartan, valsartan and irbesartan, based on expected patent expiry dates.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, applying dose-specific blood-pressure lowering and costs to a cohort of uncontrolled mild–moderate hypertensive patients and assessing the anticipated cost of treatment over a 5 year period. A probabilistic approach was adopted to account for between-patient and between-treatment differences.

Results: For both undiscounted and discounted models, a losartan-based regimen represents the least costly option of the four agents tested. Median (IQR) discounted expenditure per patient for each agent was: losartan: £506 (£441–£650), candesartan: £610 (£542–£766), valsartan: £809 (£796–£1078), irbesartan £696 (£694–£934).

Conclusion: Switching hypertensive patients taking ARBs to the agent with the lowest current acquisition cost may yield only transient budgetary savings. Once patent expiry is taken into account, this model suggests that maintaining or switching patients to losartan would yield considerably greater savings over 5 years.     

全国多中心564 711例高血压患者RAS抑制剂药物利用分析

目的：分析2017年全国8个城市口服RAS抑制剂的高血压患者特征和药品使用特征,为临床合理用药提供参考。方法：基于2017年《医院处方分析项目》随机抽取的处方数据,采用WHO推荐的药物利用分析方法,对ACEI和ARBs使用情况进行分析。结果：共抽得8个城市101家医院的564 711例的口服ACEI和ARBs类降血压药高血压患者。北京地区患者最多,占26.20%。男女比例为1.17。中位年龄64岁。老年患者占比49.90%。患者主要于门诊购药,占89.10%。处方科室以内科为主,占89.40%。303例患者存在潜在超适应证用药风险。ARBs处方数量占78.71%,处方金额占83.05%。处方数量和处方金额最大的3种药品依次为：缬沙坦、厄贝沙坦和氯沙坦;其PDD/DDD值均大于1：缬沙坦（1.32±0.53）、厄贝沙坦（1.33±0.87）和氯沙坦（1.70±0.65）;合并肾病、肝病及同时合并肾病和肝病患者的PDD/DDD值高于患者平均水平。结论：ARBs是临床更常用的RAS抑制剂,特别是缬沙坦、厄贝沙坦和氯沙坦;仍须规范ARBs和ACEIs类药物的适应证,且重视高血压合并肾病、肝病患者的药物剂量管理。     

Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Inhibit the Generation of Epoxyeicosatrienoic Acid from Arachidonic Acid in Recombinant CYP2C9, CYP2J2 and Human Liver Microsomes

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9, CYP2C8 and CYP2J2 enzymes, which metabolize arachidonic acid (AA) to epoxyeicosatrienoic acids, have cardioprotective effects including anti‐inflammation and vasodilation. We have recently shown that some angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may inhibit AA metabolism via CYP2C8. Using recombinant CYP2C9, CYP2J2 and human liver microsomes (HLMs), the aim was now to compare the ability of six different clinically used ARBs to inhibit AA metabolism in vitro. The rank order of the ARBs for the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) of AA metabolism was losartan <telmisartan <irbesartan <candesartan <olmesartan <valsartan via CYP2C9, and telmisartan <irbesartan <olmesartan <losartan <candesartan and valsartan via CYP2J2. The order for the HLMs was losartan <telmisartan <irbesartan <olmesartan <candesartan <valsartan. Some ARBs having lower concentration of IC₅₀ indicate that these ARBs might inhibit the AA metabolism in the liver.     

Cost Effectiveness of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Monotherapy in Patients with Hypertension in the Netherlands

Background and Objective

Health gains and related cost savings achieved by optimizing treatment in hypertensive patients is highly important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost effectiveness of treatment with angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin II receptor blockers [ARBs]) in patients with essential hypertension and to compare within-trial with real-life dosing of ARBs.

Methods

Cost effectiveness was estimated based on a published clinical trial comparing the BP-lowering effects of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan. BP lowering after 8 weeks of treatment was entered into the Framingham risk functions to estimate cardiovascular complications after 1 and 5 years, using an international health economics model that was adapted to the Netherlands. Dutch costs (2006 values) and complications derived from the model were discounted at 4% and 1.5%, respectively, and cost effectiveness was expressed in net costs per cardiovascular complication averted. In a drug-utilization study, pharmacy dispensing records were used to evaluate differences between within-trial and daily-practice dosing and related costs for treatment in the Netherlands.

Results

After 8 weeks, the trial-based analysis showed that treatment with olmesartan versus losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan resulted in a significantly larger decrease in BP (11.5 vs 8.2, 7.9 and 9.9 mmHg [p<0.05], respectively) and consequently more complications averted. Cost effectiveness for olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan was estimated at €39 100, €77 100, €70 700, and €50 900 per cardiovascular complication averted, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the most favorable cost-effectiveness outcome for olmesartan, with lower costs and less cardiovascular complications for olmesartan compared with the other three ARBs. The drug-utilization analysis showed that the dosing followed within clinical trials was not found in daily practice. On average, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan were administered at doses above those used in clinical trials, whereas olmesartan was dosed lower than in clinical trials, resulting in relatively lower costs.

Conclusion

Based on the exact trial data, olmesartan was estimated to be the most favorable option of the four ARBs based on within-trial decreases in BP levels after 8 weeks and in terms of cost-effectiveness for this particular Dutch setting. However, for definite conclusions to be drawn, this hypothesis-generating study requires confirmation from further prospective studies comparing ARBs based on comparable BP control and including hard endpoints.     

Palatability of angiotensin II antagonists among nephropathic children

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: * Among children, medication palatability is crucial for adherence to therapeutic regimen. * Several studies have measured the palatability of antimicrobial suspensions in paediatric patients by means of a visual analogue scale palatability score. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: * This is the first analysis comparing the taste and smell acceptability of angiotensin II receptor blockers among paediatric patients with kidney disease. * From the perspective of the child with kidney disease, the taste of pulverized candesartan is significantly superior to that of pulverized irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan or valsartan. AIM: Angiotensin II receptor blockers are widely prescribed in kidney disease. Among children, medication palatability is crucial for adherence. METHODS: Taste and smell acceptability of five angiotensin II receptor blockers were compared among 21 nephropathic children using a visual analogue scale palatability score. RESULTS: The score assigned to pulverized tablets of candesartan cilexetil was significantly higher than that assigned to pulverized tablets of irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan and valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the nephropathic child, the taste of pulverized candesartan cilexetil is superior to that of irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan or valsartan.     

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system and cardio-renal protection: focus on losartan and angiotensin receptor blockade

Angiotensin II plays a central role in the pathogenesis and progression of proteinuric nephropathies and related cardiovascular complications. Losartan is a selective non-peptide angiotensin Type 1-receptor blocker (ARB) with unique uricosuric effect, not shared by other ARBs. Losartan has demonstrated renoprotective effects in animals and humans with diabetic and non-diabetic renal diseases similar to those of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, with a lower incidence of dry cough and angioneurotic oedema. A reduced incidence of cerebrovascular events and diabetes has been reported in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy on losartan therapy compared with patients treated with atenolol. Whether ARBs have superior cardioprotective effects, compared with other blood pressure medications, is still unknown. Combined angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and ARB therapy improves renal outcomes in non-diabetic nephropathies more than single drug renin-angiotensin system inhibition. Whether this also applies to diabetic nephropathy and related cardiovascular outcomes is still unknown.     

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system and cardio-renal protection: focus on losartan and angiotensin receptor blockade

Angiotensin II plays a central role in the pathogenesis and progression of proteinuric nephropathies and related cardiovascular complications. Losartan is a selective non-peptide angiotensin Type 1-receptor blocker (ARB) with unique uricosuric effect, not shared by other ARBs. Losartan has demonstrated renoprotective effects in animals and humans with diabetic and non-diabetic renal diseases similar to those of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, with a lower incidence of dry cough and angioneurotic oedema. A reduced incidence of cerebrovascular events and diabetes has been reported in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy on losartan therapy compared with patients treated with atenolol. Whether ARBs have superior cardioprotective effects, compared with other blood pressure medications, is still unknown. Combined angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and ARB therapy improves renal outcomes in non-diabetic nephropathies more than single drug renin-angiotensin system inhibition. Whether this also applies to diabetic nephropathy and related cardiovascular outcomes is still unknown.     

3种不同血管紧张素受体阻滞剂类药物对早期糖尿病肾病治疗效果分析

目的分析3种不同血管紧张素受体阻滞剂类药物治疗早期糖尿病肾病的疗效。方法将90例早期糖尿病肾病患者随机分为A、B、C3组,每组30例。A组患者采用缬沙坦进行治疗,B组患者采用伊贝沙坦进行治疗,C组患者采用替米沙坦进行治疗,对比3组临床疗效。结果经治疗,3组患者的病情均得到了一定程度的改善,A、C组总有效率均为90.0%,B组总有效率为93.3%。结论在治疗早期糖尿病肾病的过程中,采用不同血管紧张素受体阻滞剂类药物治疗均可明显提高临床疗效,其中采用伊贝沙坦治疗的效果最好,值得临床推广应用。     

Which Strategy Is More Effective for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease

Angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonists (blockers) [ARBs] are highly selective for the AT(1) receptor and block the diverse effects of angiotensin II. When high BP is not controlled by low-dose ARB monotherapy, physicians need to employ another strategy, either high-dose ARB monotherapy or combination therapy with calcium channel antagonists (blockers) [CCBs], diuretics, or other agents. High-dose ARB monotherapy is more effective for decreasing proteinuria than low-dose ARB monotherapy or CCBs. Although the ARB valsartan has been shown to prevent coronary restenosis in a clinical study (Val-PREST [Valsartan for prevention of restenosis after stenting of type B2/C lesions]), it is still unclear whether ARBs help to prevent restenosis. The results reported by Peters in this issue highlight the relative efficacies of low- (80 mg/day) and high-dose valsartan (160-320 mg/day) for the prevention of in-stent restenosis after the implantation of bare-metal stents, and suggest that high-dose valsartan can reduce the in-stent restenosis rate, target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization rates, late lumen loss, and major adverse cardiac events rate more effectively than low-dose valsartan. A better understanding of the differences in the efficacies of high- and low-dose ARBs could be useful in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease and may resolve the issue of whether ARBs prevent coronary restenosis. Clinical benefits may be induced by complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system using high-dose ARB monotherapy. Therefore, physicians need to select a strategy carefully; i.e. either high-dose ARB monotherapy or combination therapy.     

Differences in pharmacology and their translation into differences in clinical efficacy – a comparison of the renin angiotensin blocking agents irbesartan and losartan

Importance of the field: Guidelines recommend five antihypertensive drug classes, but which particular drug to choose is up to the treating physician. We aimed at an in-depth comparison of two frequently used angiotensin receptor blockers to provide evidence for this decision.

Areas covered in this review: Pharmacology of irbesartan and losartan, their blood-pressure-lowering efficacy, their tolerability/safety, end-organ protective effects and economic evaluation.

What the reader will gain: Both drugs differ in their oral bioavailability, potential for food interactions, degree of metabolism, dosing interval, time to peak, volume of distribution and terminal half-life. Irbesartan provides a greater and longer-lasting antihypertensive effect and was determined to be cost effective over losartan in Denmark and Sweden. Irbesartan was more effective in preventing deterioration of kidney function in patients with diabetic nephropathy, being cost effective from a German perspective. There is only one end point trial for either drug in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, heart failure and atrial fibrillation, but no direct comparison.

Take home message: There is an incremental clinical benefit of irbesartan over losartan in the treatment of hypertension and diabetic nephropathy which can be substantiated by corresponding preclinical study evidence. This has translated into an economic benefit in a number of country-specific evaluations.     

Therapeutic potential of angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system plays a key role in the regulation of fluid and electrolyte balance. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit angiotensin II type 1 receptors and large clinical trials have shown that they are effective in many cardiovascular diseases including hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction and diabetic nephropathy. They lower blood pressure effectively, are very well tolerated and can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. ARBs are particularly suitable for hypertensive patients with co-morbities such as diabetes, microalbuminuria, proteinuria, left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure. Unlike angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ARBs do not cause persistent dry cough. For patients in whom angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are indicated but not tolerated, an ARB should be considered. Periodic monitoring of renal function and electrolytes is required in patients treated with an ARB.     

Therapeutic potential of angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays a key role in the regulation of fluid and electrolyte balance. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit angiotensin II type 1 receptors and large clinical trials have shown that they are effective in many cardiovascular diseases including hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction and diabetic nephropathy. They lower blood pressure effectively, are very well tolerated and can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. ARBs are particularly suitable for hypertensive patients with co-morbidities such as diabetes, microalbuminuria, proteinuria, left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure. Unlike angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ARBs do not cause persistent dry cough. For patients in whom angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are indicated but not tolerated, an ARB should be considered. Periodic monitoring of renal function and electrolytes is required in patients treated with an ARB.     

Comparison of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of essential hypertension

Hypertension is a major health problem worldwide, yet remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) are highly effective at reducing blood pressure (BP), exhibit renoprotective properties and have placebo-like tolerability. However, it is unclear whether there are clinical differences in efficacy and tolerability between the available ARBs. A review of published, randomized, comparative clinical trials suggests that differences in BP-lowering efficacy and 24-hour BP control may exist between ARBs, although it appears that there is no evidence for important differences in tolerability between ARBs. Few studies have assessed attainment rates for important combined systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) goals recommended in treatment guidelines. Likewise, few studies have directly compared more than two agents or ARB/hydrochlorothiazide fixed-dose combinations, and most ARBs have not been compared across their full recommended dosage ranges. Overall, there is insufficient weight of evidence to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the available ARBs. However, newer ARBs (e.g. olmesartan medoxomil and telmisartan) appear to be more effective than older ARBs (e.g. losartan and valsartan) in reducing DBP and/or SBP in some trials. In addition, olmesartan medoxomil treatment regimens resulted in high BP control rates in several trials, but head-to-head trials with other ARBs are required to put these control rates into perspective, especially for SBP control with various agents. The purpose of this review is to present published data from ARB efficacy trials for a comparison of various efficacy parameters among the agents within this drug class.     

Functional comparison of the antagonistic properties of some Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers on the contraction elicited by Angiotensin II and thromboxane A2 on human saphenous veins

We previously described on human vascular preparations that, in addition to its antagonistic properties on Angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor, losartan could also inhibit the contraction elicited by the stable thromboxane A2 mimetic U46619. The present study was designed (1) to investigate, in human vascular preparations (the saphenous veins) whether these antagonistic properties on thromboxane A2/prostaglandin H2 (TP) receptor were shared by some other AT1 receptor antagonists (irbesartan and valsartan) and the active metabolite of losartan EXP3174, and (2) to compare their antagonistic properties on TP receptors to their antagonistic properties on AT1 receptors. In the presence of indomethacin (10 microM) and Nomega-nitro-L-arginine (100 microM), irbesartan, valsartan, and EXP3174 induced a rightward shift of U46619- and angiotensin II-induced contraction. The inhibitory effect of irbesartan, valsartan, and EXP3174 on U46619-induced contraction was significant from 100 microM while their inhibitory effect on the contraction elicited by angiotensin II was significant from 1 nM. With regard to the plasma therapeutic concentrations of irbesartan, valsartan, and EXP3174, these data suggest that TP receptor blockade does not account for the antihypertensive effects of these AT1 receptor blockers.     

Therapeutic Effects of Angiotensin (AT1) Receptor Antagonists

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system improves morbidity and mortality of patients with cardiovascular diseases, e.g. arterial hypertension, renal failure, following myocardial infarction and in congestive heart failure. The angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs), i.e. losartan, eprosartan, irbesartan and valsartan were developed by computer-based molecule design. Early observations already indicate that the ARBs elicit pleiotropic effects developing anti-aggregatory, anti-inflammatory and anti-mitogenic effects independent from their actions at the AT(1) receptor. Losartan metabolism indicates a number of known active intermediates and pointed to further interactions of these derivatives with other receptors and cellular signaling systems. Here we discuss a compilation of detailed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data of active metabolites of ARBs indicating their mode of action and suggest novel therapeutic implications. The clinical observations that ARBs elicit potencies in patients with cardiovascular diseases via the regulation of inflammatory, growth and homeostatic factors lead us to focus on specific, reactive metabolites, which hold potential for future indications and possible drug interactions in cardiovascular diseases.     

Pharmacoeconomics of angiotensin II antagonists in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy: implications for decision making

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin II receptor blockers; ARBs) are a class of antihypertensive drugs that are generally considered comparable to ACE inhibitors in the prevention of heart and kidney failure. However, these two classes of agents do interfere in different stages of the renin-angiotensin system. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, advantages for ARBs over conventional (non-ACE inhibitor) therapy on progression from micro- to macroalbuminuria and overt nephropathy and end-stage renal disease have been shown in clinical trials. In patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal disease, the need for dialysis and/or transplantation results in the use of major healthcare resources. This paper reviews the available economic evidence on treatment with ARBs in type 2 diabetic patients with advanced renal disease.Within-trial analytic and Markov model economic evaluations of the RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoint in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan), IDNT (Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial) and IRMA (IRbesartan in type 2 diabetes with MicroAlbuminuria)-2 studies suggest that treatment with ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetes with overt or incipient nephropathy confers health gains and net cost savings compared with conventional (non-ACE inhibitor) therapy. For reimbursement and reference pricing decisions, there is a need for a head-to-head comparison of an ACE inhibitor with ARBs to model all possible costs and effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. This will result in a proper pharmacoeconomic outcome, where both types of drugs can be compared for healthcare decisions.