In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, patients whose blood pressure (BP) 2008;10:185-194.

The strategy of initiating hypertension treatment with combination versus single-drug therapy was formally tested in a prospective, double-blind, parallel-group trial in blacks with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) X160 and o200 mm Hg). Participants were randomized equally to amlodipine/valsartan (A/V) (n ¼ 286) or amlodipine (A) monotherapy (n ¼ 286). After 2 weeks, there was forced titration of A/V 5/160 mg to A/V 10/160 mg and of A 5 to A 10 mg followed by 10 additional weeks of treatment. If SBP was X130 mm Hg at week 4, the protocol allowed optional titration of A/V to the 10/320 mg dose and, at week 8, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was optionally added to both A/V and A if SBP X130 mm Hg. Amlodipine/ valsartan at week 8 lowered MSSBP last observation carried forward significantly4A (33.3 vs 26.6 mm Hg, Po0.0001). Lowering of MSSBP with A/V significantly exceeded that of A in several specified subgroups-the elderly (X65 years), isolated systolic hypertension, and those with body mass index (BMI) X30 kg/m 2 . More patients treated with A/V than A achieved BP control (o140/90 mm Hg) both at weeks 8 (49.8 vs 30.2%; Po0.0001) and 12 (57.2 vs 35.9%; Po0.0001). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated. In conclusion, the strategy of initiating combination antihypertensive drug therapy in blacks with stage 2 hypertension with amlodipine /valsartan achieves greater and quicker reductions in BP as well as significantly higher BP control rates than starting treatment with amlodipine monotherapy.

Background: Consolidation immunotherapy with the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab improves survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer responding to radiochemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in Switzerland based on the most recent PACIFIC survival follow-up. Materials and methods: We constructed a Markov model based on the 3-year follow-up data of the PACIFIC trial and compared consolidation durvalumab with observation. We used published utility values and assessed costs for treatment strategies from the perspective of the Swiss health care payers. Cost-effectiveness was tested both in the intention-to-treat population of the PACIFIC trial unselected for PD-L1 tumor expression and in patients with PD-L1expressing tumors (!1%). Results: In the unselected/PD-L1-positive patients, durvalumab showed an incremental effectiveness of 0.76/1.18 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental costs of Swiss Francs (CHF) 67 239/78 177, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CHF 88 703/66 131 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were the utility before first progression, costs for durvalumab, and the hazard ratio for overall survival under durvalumab versus observation. The cost-effectiveness of durvalumab was better than CHF 100 000 per QALY gained in 75% of the simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100 000 per QALY gained, consolidation durvalumab is likely to be cost-effective both in patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) unselected for PD-L1 status and in patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors in Switzerland.

No abstract