Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-963546
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Defined Daily Doses: Ein Instrument zur Kostensteuerung im Gesundheitswesen?
Defined Daily Doses: An instrument for cost control in Health Care System?Publication History
Publication Date:
12 February 2008 (online)

Zusammenfassung
Die im Rahmen des AVWG verabschiedete Bonus-Malus-Regelung ist im Januar 2007 formal in Kraft getreten. Ziel der Maßnahme sind, auf Basis von „defined daily doses” (DDD), Einsparungen bei den Arzneimittelkosten. Jedoch ist ein „Missbrauch” der DDD zur Kostensteuerung nicht nur unsinnig, sondern für den Patienten unter Umständen sogar gefährlich. Am Beispiel der arteriellen Hypertonie wird gezeigt, dass die über die DDD ermittelte mittlere Dosierung für die verschiedenen AT 1-Blocker nicht einer Wirkäquivalenz entspricht. Konsekutiv ist die Dosierung bei Verwendung einer DDD in einigen Fällen adäquat, in anderen Fällen nicht ausreichend. Folgen für den Patienten schlagen sich im kardiovaskulären Risiko nieder. Eine um nur 2 mmHg verminderte Blutdrucksenkung führt zu einer Erhöhung des Schlaganfallrisikos um 7 % über 10 Jahre. Daher muss die Kostendebatte letztlich dazu führen, dass nicht die Kosten im Verhältnis zu den DDD, sondern der „Preis” für ein Lebensjahr, mit optimal eingestelltem Blutdruck abzüglich der dadurch vermiedenen Folgekosten, als Maßstab für die Kosten-Nutzen-Betrachtung herangezogen wird.
Abstract
The within the AVWG consented Bonus-Malus regulation (Germany) has been enacted formally in January 2007. Aim of this regulation was to save money from drug expenses on the basis of “defined daily doses” (DDD). An “abuse” of DDD for cost control is, however, not only counterproductive but possibly even dangerous. Taking arterial hypertension as an example it is illustrated in this article that the DDD determined means doses are not equally effective in reducing blood pressure. Consecutively dose is adequate in some cases, but in other cases it is not. Consequences for patients are an increase in cardiovascular risk. A reduction of the blood pressure lowering effect of only 2 mmHg leads to an increased stroke risk of 7 % over 10 years. Therefore the cost debate should result in a substitution of measures for cost-benefit-ratios: Instead of estimating costs in relation to DDD the “price” of a year of life with optimal blood pressure discounted by the avoided consequential costs should be examined.
Schlüsselwörter
DDD - Hypertonie - Äquivalenzdosierung - Kosten-Nutzen Verhältnis
Key words
DDD - hypertension - equivalent dose - cost benefit ratio
Literatur
- 1
Andersson O K, Neldam S.
The antihypertensive effect and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, a new generation
angiotensin II antagonist, in comparison with losartan.
Blood Press.
1998;
7
53-59
MissingFormLabel
- 2
Brenner B M, Cooper M E, Zeeuw de D. et al .
Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes
and nephropathy.
N Engl J Med.
2001;
345
861-869
MissingFormLabel
- 3
Conlin P R, Gerth W C, Fox J. et al .
Four-Year persistence patterns among patients initiating therapy with the angiotensin
II receptor antagonist losartan versus other antihypertensive drug classes.
Clin Ther.
2001;
23
1999-2010
MissingFormLabel
- 4
Dominiak P, Hauser W.
Dosage equivalents of AT 1-receptor antagonists available in Germany.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr.
2003;
128
2315-2318
MissingFormLabel
- 5
Elliott W J, Calhoun D A, DeLucca P T. et al .
Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential
hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial.
Clin Ther.
2001;
23
1166-1179
MissingFormLabel
- 6
Erkens J A, Panneman M M, Klungel O H. et al .
Differences in antihypertensive drug persistence associated with drug class and gender:
a PHARMO study.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf.
2005;
14
795-803
MissingFormLabel
- 7
Gradman A H, Lewin A, Bowling B T. et al .
Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in patients with systemic
hypertension. Candesartan Versus Losartan Efficacy Comparison (CANDLE) Study Group.
Heart Dis.
1999;
1
52-57
MissingFormLabel
- 8
Granger C B, McMurray J J, Yusuf S. et al .
Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular
systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative
trial.
Lancet.
2003;
362
772-776
MissingFormLabel
- 9
Hasford J, Mimran A, Simons W R.
A population-based European cohort study of persistence in newly diagnosed hypertensive
patients.
J Hum Hypertens.
2002;
16
569-575
MissingFormLabel
- 10
Hedner T, Himmelmann A. The Eprosartan Multinational Study Group .
The efficacy and tolerance of one or two daily doses of eprosartan in essential hypertension.
J Hypertens.
1999;
17
129-136
MissingFormLabel
- 11
Hedner T, Oparil S, Rasmussen K. et al .
A comparison of the angiotensin II antagonists valsartan and losartan in the treatment
of essential hypertension.
Am J Hypertens.
1999;
12
414-417
MissingFormLabel
- 12
Kassler-Taub K, Littlejohn T, Elliott W. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators .
Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan
in mild-to-moderate hypertension.
Am J Hypertens.
1998;
11
445-453
MissingFormLabel
- 13
Kiiskinen U, Vartiainen E, Puska P. et al .
Long-term cost and life-expectancy consequences of hypertension.
J Hypertens.
1998;
16
1103-1112
MissingFormLabel
- 14
Lacourciere Y, Asmar R. Candesartan/Losartan study investigators .
A comparison of the efficacy and duration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan
as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly
hypertensive patients: a placebo-controlled, forced titration study.
Am J Hypertens.
1999;
12
1181-1187
MissingFormLabel
- 15
Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N. et al .
Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis
of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies.
Lancet.
2002;
360
1903-1913
MissingFormLabel
- 16
Lewis E J, Hunsicker L G, Clarke W R. et al .
Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients
with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes.
N Engl J Med.
2001;
345
851-860
MissingFormLabel
- 17
Littlejohn T, Mroczek W, Marbury T. et al .
A prospective, randomized, open-label trial comparing telmisartan 80 mg with valsartan
80 mg in patients with mild to moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring.
Can J Cardiol.
2000;
16
1123-1132
MissingFormLabel
- 18
Mallion J, Siche J, Lacourciere Y.
ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor
antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.
J Hum Hypertens.
1999;
13
657-664
MissingFormLabel
- 19
Mancia G, Korlipara K, Rossum van P. et al .
An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive
efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and valsartan.
Blood Press Monit.
2002;
7
135-142
MissingFormLabel
- 20
McMurray J J, Ostergren J, Swedberg K. et al .
Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular
systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added
trial.
Lancet.
2003;
362
767-771
MissingFormLabel
- 21
Monterroso V H, Rodriguez Chavez V, Carbajal E T. et al .
Use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to compare antihypertensive efficacy and
safety of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, losartan and valsartan. Losartan
Trial Investigators.
Adv Ther.
2000;
17
117-131
MissingFormLabel
- 22
Oparil S, Guthrie R, Lewin A J. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators .
An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor
blockers, irbesartan and losartan.
Clin Ther.
1998;
20
398-409
MissingFormLabel
- 23
Oparil S, Williams D, Chrysant S G. et al .
Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control
of essential hypertension.
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich).
2001;
3
283-291, 318
MissingFormLabel
- 24
Parving H H, Lehnert H, Brochner-Mortensen J. et al .
The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with
type 2 diabetes.
N Engl J Med.
2001;
345
870-878
MissingFormLabel
- 25
Pfeffer M A, McMurray J J, Velazquez E J. et al .
Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure,
left ventricular dysfunction, or both.
N Engl J Med.
2003;
349
1893-1906
MissingFormLabel
- 26
Pfeffer M A, Swedberg K, Granger C B. et al .
Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure:
the CHARM-Overall programme.
Lancet.
2003;
362
759-766
MissingFormLabel
- 27
Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez F A. et al .
Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure
(Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE).
Lancet.
1997;
349
747-752
MissingFormLabel
- 28
Vidt D G, White W B, Ridley E. et al .
A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in
comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II.
J Hum Hypertens.
2001;
15
475-480
MissingFormLabel
- 29
Yusuf S, Pfeffer M A, Swedberg K. et al .
Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular
ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial.
Lancet.
2003;
362
777-781
MissingFormLabel
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Wasem
Lehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, FB 5 Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universität Duisburg-Essen
Campus Essen
45117 Essen
Phone: ++ 49/2 01/1 83 42 83
Fax: ++ 49/2 01/1 83 40 73
Email: juergen.wasem@uni-duisburg-essen.de