[Theoretical model of a cost-effectiveness analysis of combined enalapril-nitrendipine therapy for treating hypertension]. / Modelo teórico de análisis coste-efectividad de la terapia combinada de enalapril-nitrendipino en el tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analysis of combined enalapril-nitrendipine therapy (E/N), as second-line therapy for light or moderate hypertension. DESIGN: Theoretical model of cost-effectiveness, based on the norms of hypertension treatment in primary care, the considered view of a panel of experts and the direct costs of health resources and purchase of medication. SETTING: Spanish National Health system. PARTICIPANTS: Simulation of 1000 patients with hypertension, with a time horizon of one year. INTERVENTIONS: After a prior failure of the first-line treatment with either enalapril or nitrendipine, an evaluation was made of the possibilities of increasing dosage of the first-line treatment, changing the drug or administering the E/N combination. MAIN MEASUREMENT: The likelihoods, in the primary care context, of controlling diastolic pressure, of abandonment and of using the two strategies or not were measured, as were the use of health resources in each situation, and costs of resource use and of medication. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness quotient of the combined E/N treatment was consistently more efficient than the increase in dose or change to another drug. This was so, whether the treatment was started with enalapril (301.06 euros vs 337.97 euros and 588.42 euros) or with nitrendipine (331.5 euros vs 469.88 euros and 579.76 euros). CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapy (E/N) is, on the basis of the assumptions made in the model, an efficient therapy option. Therefore, it can be recommended for prescription.

Nitrendipine and enalapril combination therapy in mild to moderate hypertension: assessment of dose-response relationship by a clinical trial of factorial design.

Hypertension is an important cardiovascular risk factor and the goal of its pharmacologic treatment is to reduce morbidity and mortality. Treatment is usually initiated with a low dose of a single agent and titrated to a higher dose as required. As many as 50% of patients require the addition of a second agent to achieve satisfactory blood pressure control. The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response relationship of nitrendipine and enalapril alone or in fixed combination in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. A total of 496 patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design, parallel-group clinical trial comparing placebo, nitrendipine (5, 10, and 20 mg) and enalapril (5, 10, and 20 mg) alone or in combination. After a single-blind, 2-week placebo run-in period, 414 patients whose diastolic blood pressure ranged between 90-109 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a treatment group. The combination of nitrendipine and enalapril, particularly regimens including nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 5 or 10 mg, were significantly superior to both monotherapies; mean diastolic blood pressure reductions from baseline to last visit were -12.5 and -14.3 mm Hg, respectively. Response surface analysis provided further evidence that these combinations were optimal in terms of anti-hypertensive efficacy. All treatments were well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. In summary, the anti-hypertensive efficacy of the combination was found to be superior to both monotherapies at any doses. The dose combination achieving the greatest blood pressure reduction was nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 10 mg.

[The use of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis. The characteristics and consequences]. / Utilización de antibióticos en profilaxis quirúrgica. Características y consecuencias.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in certain surgical procedures has been demonstrated in clinical trials. The present study aimed at getting knowledge on the way how it is used in a certain hospital. METHODS: In a certain day, all patients receiving antibiotics to prevent a postoperative infection were identified in a medical school hospital. Information on the operative procedure, prescribed antibiotics and clinical course of the patients was recorded. RESULTS: Out of 714 patients admitted, 255 (36%) were treated with antibiotics and, of these, 85 were given them to prevent a postoperative infection. In 52% of patients, two or more antibiotics were given. The mean (SD) duration of prophylaxis was 8.4 (8.6) days. It was judged as really indicated in 34 cases (40%). Only in 17 (20%) the first choice antibiotic was selected; in 11 (13%) a preoperative dose of the right antibiotic was administered and only in 3 (3.5%) a preoperative dose of the first choice antibiotic was administered and prophylaxis lasted up to 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis in a medical school hospital is inappropriate in more than 95% of cases. The situation in other centres should be quantified and the universally accepted norms of prophylaxis should be implemented.