Effects of Antihypertensive Class on Falls, Syncope, and Orthostatic Hypotension in Older Adults: The ALLHAT Trial.

Hypertension treatment has been implicated in falls, syncope, and orthostatic hypotension (OH), common events among older adults. Whether the choice of antihypertensive agent influences the risk of falls, syncope, and OH in older adults is unknown. ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) was a randomized clinical trial that compared the effects of hypertension first-step therapy on fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (1994-2002). In a subpopulation of ALLHAT participants, age 65 years and older, we determined the relative risk of falls, syncope, OH, or a composite based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Veterans Affairs claims, using Cox regression. We also determined the adjusted association of self-reported atenolol use (ascertained at the 1-month visit for indications other than hypertension) on outcomes in Cox models adjusted for age, sex, and race. Among 23 964 participants (mean age 69.8±6.8 years, 45% women, 31% non-Hispanic black) followed for a mean of 4.9 years, we identified 267 falls, 755 syncopes, 249 OH, and 1157 composite claims. There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidences of events across randomized drug assignments. However, amlodipine increased risk of falls during the first year of follow-up compared with chlorthalidone (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.24 [1.06-4.74]; P=0.03) or lisinopril (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.61 [1.03-6.72]; P=0.04). Atenolol use (N=928) was not associated with any of the 3 individual or composite claims. In older adults, the choice of antihypertensive agent had no effect on risk of fall, syncope, or OH long-term. However, amlodipine increased risk of falls within 1 year of initiation. These short-term findings require confirmation. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

Drug utilization among hypertensive patients in the outpatient department of medicine in a tertiary care hospital: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal disease. Its increasing prevalence and treatment costs influence the prescribing pattern among physicians. Drug utilization studies provide insights into the current prescribing practices and help us facilitate the rational use of drugs. We carried out the present study to assess the pattern of drug utilization in hypertensive patients. METHOD: Adults seeking treatment for hypertension were recruited. Prescriptions were studied for demographic and drug-use details. The World Health Organization indices for drug utilization were evaluated. The percentage of prescriptions adhering to the recent guidelines was determined. RESULTS: Enalapril was the most commonly prescribed drug. Monotherapy was used in 71.8% of the cases. However, 42% of the cases were newly diagnosed. The ratio of prescribed daily dose and defined daily dose showed underutilization of enalapril and atenolol and overutilization of amlodipine. About 87.5% of the prescriptions adhered to Eighth Joint National Committee guidelines. Most of the medications were available at the hospital pharmacy store and were prescribed by their generic names. Total 65.3% of the concomitant medications were not listed in the World Health Organization essential list of medicines. The average number of drugs prescribed was six. A median cost of 14.6 and 94.5 rupees was spent, respectively, on anti-hypertensive and concomitant medications per encounter. CONCLUSION: The adherence to the guideline was good. Polypharmacy can be reduced by avoiding the prescription of unnecessary medications and promoting the use of fixed-dose combinations.

Comprehensive Assessment of Coronary Plaque Progression With Advanced Intravascular Imaging, Physiological Measures, and Wall Shear Stress: A Pilot Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Nebivolol Versus Atenolol in Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that nebivolol, a ß-blocker with nitric oxide-mediated activity, compared with atenolol, a ß-blocker without such activity, would decrease oxidative stress and improve the effects of endothelial dysfunction and wall shear stress (WSS), thereby reducing atherosclerosis progression and vulnerability in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this pilot double-blinded randomized controlled trial, 24 patients treated for 1 year with nebivolol 10 mg versus atenolol 100 mg plus standard medical therapy underwent baseline and follow-up coronary angiography with assessments of inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers, microvascular function, endothelial function, and virtual histology intravascular ultrasound. WSS was calculated from computational fluid dynamics. Virtual histology intravascular ultrasound segments were assessed for vessel volumetrics and remodeling. There was a trend toward more low-WSS segments in the nebivolol cohort (P=0.06). Low-WSS regions were associated with greater plaque progression (P<0.0001) and constrictive remodeling (P=0.04); conversely, high-WSS segments demonstrated plaque regression and excessive expansive remodeling. Nebivolol patients had decreased lumen and vessel areas along with increased plaque area, resulting in more constrictive remodeling (P=0.002). There were no significant differences in biomarker levels, microvascular function, endothelial function, or number of thin-capped fibroatheromas per vessel. Importantly, after adjusting for ß-blocker, low-WSS segments remained significantly associated with lumen loss and plaque progression. CONCLUSION: Nebivolol, compared with atenolol, was associated with greater plaque progression and constrictive remodeling, likely driven by more low-WSS segments in the nebivolol arm. Both ß-blockers had similar effects on oxidative stress, microvascular function, and endothelial function. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01230892.

Comparison of atenolol versus bisoprolol with noninvasive hemodynamic and pulse wave assessment.

We aimed to compare atenolol versus bisoprolol regarding general hemodynamics, central-peripheral blood pressure (BP), pulse wave parameters, and arterial stiffness. In this open-label, crossover study, we recruited 19 hypertensives, untreated or with stable monotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive atenolol (25-50 mg) or bisoprolol (2.5-5 mg), and then switched medications after 4 weeks. Studies were performed at baseline and after each drug period. In pulse wave analyses, both drugs significantly increased augmentation index (P < .01) and ejection duration (P < .02), and reduced heart rate (P < .001), brachial systolic BP (P ≤ .01), brachial diastolic BP (P ≤ .001), and central diastolic BP (P ≤ .001), but not central systolic BP (P ≥ .06). Impedance cardiographic assessment showed a significantly increased stroke volume (P ≤ .02). There were no significant differences in the effects between drugs. In conclusion, atenolol and bisoprolol show similar hemodynamic characteristics. Failure to decrease central systolic BP results from bradycardia with increased stroke volume and an earlier reflected aortic wave.

The problem of controlling for imperfectly measured confounders on dissimilar populations: a database simulation study.

OBJECTIVE(S): Observational database research frequently relies on imperfect administrative markers to determine comorbid status, and it is difficult to infer to what extent the associated misclassification impacts validity in multivariable analyses. The effect that imperfect markers of disease will have on validity in situations in which researchers attempt to match populations that have strong baseline health differences is underemphasized as a limitation in some otherwise high-quality observational studies. The present simulations were designed as a quantitative demonstration of the importance of this common and underappreciated issue. DESIGN: Two groups of Monte Carlo simulations were performed. The first demonstrated the degree to which controlling for a series of imperfect markers of disease between different populations taking 2 hypothetically harmless drugs would lead to spurious associations between drug assignment and mortality. The second Monte Carlo simulation applied this principle to a recent study in the field of anesthesiology that purported to show increased perioperative mortality in patients taking metoprolol versus atenolol. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Simulation 1: High type-1 error (ie, false positive findings of an independent association between drug assignment and mortality) was observed as sensitivity and specificity declined and as systematic differences in disease prevalence increased. Simulation 2: Propensity score matching across several imperfect markers was unlikely to eliminate important baseline health disparities in the referenced study. CONCLUSIONS: In situations in which large baseline health disparities exist between populations, matching on imperfect markers of disease may result in strong bias away from the null hypothesis.

SF-6D utility index as measure of minimally important difference in health status change.

OBJECTIVES: To combine anchor- and distribution-based approaches to identify minimally important differences (MIDs) for the short-form six-dimension utility index (SF-6D) and to identify variables associated with self-reported health status change. DESIGN: Descriptive, exploratory, nonexperimental study. SETTING: United States between April 1, 1999, and October 31, 1999. PATIENTS: 2,317 participants of SADD-Sx (Study of Antihypertensive Drugs and Depressive Symptoms), aged 50 years or older and with hypertension and coronary artery disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized into a verapamil SR- or atenolol-led hypertensive treatment strategy and mailed baseline and 1-year surveys. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: SF-6D utility scores for patients completing both surveys. RESULTS: The pooled mean (±SD) MID change on the SF-6D of patients whose health status minimally changed was 0.035 ± 0.095. The anchor-based change scores had a median value of 0.036 (interquartile range -0.03 to 0.10). One-third and one-half of the SD of SF-6D change scores were 0.035 and 0.053, respectively. Whites were less likely to report minimally improved health status compared with nonwhites (odds ratio 0.59 [95% CI 0.40-0.88]). Change in SF-6D scores improved prediction of health status change. CONCLUSION: We recommend using the MID range based on all patients combined (-0.03 to 0.10) to interpret SF-6D scores. These estimates can be used in conjunction with other measures of efficacy to determine meaningful changes. SF-6D demonstrates potential utility in predicting minimally important improvement or worsening among patients receiving different pharmacologic medications.

[Study of the efficacy and safety of losartan versus atenolol for aortic dilation in patients with Marfan syndrome]. / Valoración de la eficacia y la seguridad del losartán frente al atenolol en la prevención de la dilatación de la aorta en el síndrome de Marfan.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Marfan syndrome is an inherited disease of the connective tissue. Recent trials have indicated the use of losartan (a transforming growth factor beta inhibitor) in these patients prevents aortic root enlargement. The aim of our clinical trial is to assess the efficacy and safety of losartan versus atenolol in the prevention of progressive dilation of the aorta in patients with Marfan syndrome. METHODS: This is a phase III clinical trial conducted in two institutions. A total of 150 subjects diagnosed with Marfan syndrome, aged between 5 and 60 years, of both sexes, and who meet the Ghent diagnostic criteria will be included in the study, with 75 patients per treatment group. It will be a randomized, double blind trial with parallel assignment to atenolol versus losartan (50 mg per day in patients below 50 kg and 100 mg per day in patients over 50 kg). Both growth and distensibility of the aorta will be assessed with echocardiography and magnetic resonance. Follow-up will be 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of losartan versus atenolol in the prevention of progressive dilation of the aorta, improved aortic distensibility, and prevention of adverse events (aortic dissection or rupture, cardiovascular surgery, or death) will be assessed in this study. It will also show the possible treatment benefits at different age ranges and with relation to the initial level of aortic root dilation.

Serial assessment of the electrocardiographic strain pattern for prediction of new-onset heart failure during antihypertensive treatment: the LIFE study.

AIMS: Although the presence of the electrocardiographic (ECG) strain pattern has been associated with an increased risk of developing heart failure (HF), the relationship of regression vs. persistence vs. development of new ECG strain to subsequent HF is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electrocardiographic strain was evaluated at baseline and at year-1 in 7265 hypertensive patients without HF treated with atenolol- or losartan-based regimens. During 3.9 ± 0.7 years of follow-up after the year-1 ECG, 154 patients (2.1%) were hospitalized for HF. Five-year HF incidence was lowest in patients with no ECG strain (1.6%), intermediate in patients with regression of strain (5.4%), and highest in patients with persistent (7.1%) or new strain (7.0%; P< 0.0001 across groups). In the Cox multivariable analyses adjusting for the known predictive value of in-treatment ECG left ventricular hypertrophy by the Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage, in-treatment QRS duration, systolic and diastolic pressure, incident myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation, randomized treatment and other risk factors for HF, regression of strain [hazards ratio (HR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-5.0], persistence of strain (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.2), and development of new ECG strain (HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.4) were all independently associated with an increased risk of new HF compared with the absence of ECG strain on both baseline and year-1 ECGs. CONCLUSION: The development of new ECG strain or persistence of ECG strain between baseline and year-1 is associated with an increased risk of HF. The regression of ECG strain between baseline and year-1 does not convey a decreased risk of HF. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00338260.

Survival among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction treated with atenolol.

Metoprolol succinate, carvedilol, and bisoprolol are approved for use in heart failure. Other beta-blockers have been found to be inferior (metoprolol tartrate) or have not been studied (atenolol). The authors compared all-cause mortality following treatment with either atenolol, carvedilol, or metoprolol tartrate for 974 patients with left ventricular function < or =40%. The unadjusted mortality at 6 months was lower with atenolol (3.2%) and carvedilol (4.2%) when compared with metoprolol tartrate (7.5%, P< or =.039). However, patients with atenolol were older but had less prior heart failure. After adjustment for the propensity to be treated with atenolol, patients actually treated with atenolol had a significantly lower risk of death compared with treatment with metoprolol tartrate and comparable outcome to those treated with carvedilol. These results suggest that atenolol may be useful for patients with heart failure treatment and highlight the need for a randomized trial comparing atenolol with established beta-blockers.

Prognostic value of changes in the electrocardiographic strain pattern during antihypertensive treatment: the Losartan Intervention for End-Point Reduction in Hypertension Study (LIFE).

BACKGROUND: The presence of the ECG strain pattern of lateral ST depression and T-wave inversion at baseline has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; however, the independent predictive value for cardiovascular outcomes of regression versus persistence versus development of new ECG strain during antihypertensive therapy is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: ECG strain was evaluated at baseline and after 1 year of therapy in 7409 hypertensive patients in the LIFE study (Losartan Intervention For End-point reduction in hypertension) treated in a blinded manner with atenolol- or losartan-based regimens. During 3.8+/-0.8 years of follow-up after the year 1 ECG, cardiovascular death occurred in 236 patients (3.2%), myocardial infarction in 198 (2.7%), stroke in 313 (4.2%), the LIFE composite end point of these 3 events in 600 (8.1%), sudden death in 92 (1.2%), and death due to any cause in 486 (6.6%). Strain was absent on both baseline and year 1 ECGs in 6323 patients (85.3%), regressed from baseline to year 1 in 245 (3.3%), persisted on both ECGs in 549 (7.4%), and was absent at baseline but developed by year 1 in 292 patients (3.9%). Compared with absence of strain on both ECGs, development of new ECG strain was associated with 2.8- to 4.7-fold higher event rates; patients with regression or persistence of strain had intermediate event rates. In Cox multivariable analyses with adjustment for the known predictive value of in-treatment ECG left ventricular hypertrophy by Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage, in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressure, randomized treatment, and standard cardiovascular risk factors, development of new ECG strain was independently associated with increased risks of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56 to 3.76), myocardial infarction (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.44), stroke (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.01), the LIFE composite end point (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.78), sudden cardiac death (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.53), and all-cause mortality (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.69), whereas the risk associated with regression or persistence of strain was attenuated. CONCLUSIONS: Development of new ECG strain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and of all-cause mortality in the setting of antihypertensive therapy and regression of ECG left ventricular hypertrophy.

The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT1.

BACKGROUND: ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) showed in hypertensive patients that blood pressure-lowering treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen reduces events compared with an atenolol-based regimen and that atorvastatin was more effective than placebo. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of four alternative treatment strategies in patients with hypertension and three or more cardiovascular risk factors in the UK (from the UK NHS perspective) or Sweden (from the societal perspective): amlodipine-based plus atorvastatin, atenolol-based plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based alone and atenolol-based alone. METHODS: Based on the trial data, a Markov model was constructed where the risk of myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures and stroke and the long-term costs, quality of life and mortality associated with these events were estimated. Transition probabilities and costs (euro, 2007 values) were based on the patient-level trial data. Outcomes were reported as life-years gained and QALYs. In the latter case, utility reduction from events was based on a substudy in ASCOT patients. Treatment was applied for the duration of the lipid-lowering arm of the trial (3 years) and patients were then followed to the end of their life. RESULTS: Amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin was the most expensive but also most effective treatment. Compared with amlodipine-based therapy alone, the cost to gain one QALY was euro 11,965 in the UK and euro 8,591 in Sweden. The incremental cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy compared with atenolol-based therapy was euro 9,548 and euro 3,965 per QALY gained in the UK and Sweden, respectively. Atenolol-based therapy plus atorvastatin was eliminated through extended dominance. Applying the threshold values used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, a combination of amlodipine-based therapy and atorvastatin appears to be cost effective in patients with hypertension and three or more additional risk factors.

[Hypertension--does it matter how blood pressure is lowered?]. / Hypertension--er det lige meget, hvordan vi saenker blodtrykket?

ASCOT compared the effect of atenolol combined with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril in hypertensive patients. It also studied the effect of atorvastatin in those with normal cholesterol. ASCOT concluded that reductions in cardiovascular events with atorvastatin were significant, and that amlodipine-based treatment prevented more cardiovascular events. The latter seemed to be due to better control of central blood pressure. Both statin and amlodipine-based treatments were cost-effective. According to the ASCOT study, it does matter how blood pressure is lowered.

Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective compared with an atenolol-based regimen.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of an amlodipine-based strategy and an atenolol-based strategy in the treatment of hypertension in the UK and Sweden. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised trial complemented with a Markov model to assess long-term costs and health effects. SETTING: Primary care. PATIENTS: Patients with moderate hypertension and three or more additional risk factors. INTERVENTIONS: Amlodipine 5-10 mg with perindopril 4-8 mg added as needed or atenolol 50-100 mg with bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium added as needed MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per cardiovascular event and procedure avoided, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: In the UK, the cost to avoid one cardiovascular event or procedure would be euro18 965, and the cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-year would be euro21 875. The corresponding figures for Sweden were euro13 210 and euro16 856. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the thresholds applied by NICE and in the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's Guidelines for Cardiac Care, an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective for the treatment of hypertension compared with an atenolol-based regimen in the population studied.

An economic assessment of losartan-based versus atenolol-based therapy in patients with hypertension and left-ventricular hypertrophy: results from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study adapted to The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study was a randomized, doubleblind trial that compared the effects of losartan-based treatment with those of atenolol-based treatment on cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related morbidity and mortality in 9193 patients with hypertension and left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Compared with atenolol, losartan reduced the combined risk for CVD-related morbidity and mortality by 13% (P = 0.021), and reduced the risk for stroke by 25% (P = 0.001), with comparable blood pressure control in both trial arms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol in the treatment of stroke from the Dutch health care perspective. METHODS: Utilization of losartan and atenolol within the trial period (mean, 4.8 years) and an estimation of direct medical costs of stroke for The Netherlands were combined with estimates of reduction in life expectancy through stroke. Medication costs and stroke incidence during 5.5 years of patient follow-up were estimated separately, adjusted for the baseline degree of LVH and Framingham risk score. To estimate lifetime stroke costs, the cumulative incidence of stroke was multiplied by the lifetime direct medical costs attributable to stroke. All costs are in 2006 Dutch prices and discounted following the former (4% costs and effects) and new Dutch guideline (4% costs, 1.5% effects) for conducting pharmacoeconomic analyses. RESULTS: With 4% discounting, prevention of stroke was associated with a gain of 3.7 life-years. As a consequence, losartan treatment was associated with 0.059 life-year gained (LYG) per patient treated with losartan. Losartan reduced stroke-related costs by 1,076 Euros (US $1,349) per patient. After inclusion of study medication cost, net cost per patient was 51 Euros ($64) higher for losartan than atenolol. The net cost per LYG was 864 Euros ($1083), which is below the Dutch pharmacoeconomic threshold of 20,000 Euros/LYG (~$25,000/LYG) for accepting interventions. The corresponding probability of a cost-effectiveness ratio below this Dutch threshold was 0.95. Discounting money and health following the new Dutch guideline resulted in an even more favorable cost-effectiveness for losartan. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the present analysis suggest that, in The Netherlands, treatment with losartan compared with atenolol may well be a cost-effective intervention based on the reduced risk for stroke observed in the LIFE trial.

Ivabradine: new drug. Best avoided in stable angina.

(1) The first-line symptomatic treatment for stable angina is a betablocker such as atenolol. Some calcium channel blockers such as verapamil, and the potassium channel agonist amlodipine, are second-line alternatives. Long-acting nitrate derivatives have poorly documented efficacy but can be used as adjuvants or as third-line treatments. (2) Ivabradine is derived from verapamil but appears to have a different mechanism of action, mainly lowering the heart rate. It was approved for sale in Europe through the centralised procedure for second-line treatment of stable angina. (3) Clinical evaluation of ivabradine only includes randomised controlled trials versus two other anti-angina drugs: atenolol and amlodipine. Three double-blind randomised controlled trials lasting 3 to 4 months, based on surrogate exercise endpoints, failed to show that ivabradine was any more effective than atenolol or amlodipine, or even more effective than placebo in patients already treated with amlodipine. (4) In two one-year double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing ivabradine with atenolol or amlodipine in a total of 704 patients, ivabradine was no more effective than the comparators in preventing angina attacks. (5) In head-to-head comparisons, serious coronary events were significantly more frequent with ivabradine than with atenolol (3.8% versus 1.5%). Severe arrhythmias were also more frequent with ivabradine than with atenolol (1.3% versus 0.7%) or amlodipine (0.6% versus 0.2%). (6) Ivabradine provokes phosphenes (flashing lights, etc.) in about 17% of patients in the short term. Information is inadequate to assess possible risks of retinal toxicity in the long term. (7) Ivabradine is metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP 3A4; there is therefore a potentially high risk of pharmacokinetic interactions. (8) In practice, for long-term preventive treatment of angina it is better to avoid ivabradine and to use better-documented treatments: preferably a betablocker, or, if a betablocker cannot be used, verapamil or amlodipine.

Assessment of long-term antihypertensive treatment by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure: data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Information on the features of long-term modifications of clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) by treatment is limited. The present study aimed to address this issue. METHODS: Ambulatory BP monitoring and clinic BP (CBP) measurements were performed at baseline and at yearly intervals over a 4-year follow-up period in 1523 hypertensives (56.1 +/- 7.6 years) randomized to treatment with lacidipine or atenolol in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA). RESULTS: CBP was always greater than ABP, while reductions in all BP values (greater for CBP than for ABP) were on average maintained throughout 4 years, CBP changes showing limited relationship with ABP changes (r = 0.14-0.27). BP reductions by treatment during daytime and night-time were correlated (r = 0.63-0.73). BP normalization was achieved in a greater percentage of patients for CBP (41.7%) than for ABP (25.3%), with systolic BP control being always less common than diastolic BP control. BP normalization was more frequent at single yearly visits than throughout the 4 years. Twenty-four-hour BP variability was reduced by treatment over 4 years in absolute but not in normalized units. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides the best evidence available on long-term effect of antihypertensive treatment on both ABP and CBP. On average, ABP was sustainedly reduced by treatment throughout the follow-up period, but 24-h BP was more difficult to control than CBP. In several patients, ABP control was unstable between visits, the percentage of patients under control over 4 years being much less than that of those controlled at each year. Treatment induced a reduction in absolute but not in normalized BP variability estimates. This has clinical implications because of the prognostic importance of ABP mean values and variability.

[Cost-effectiveness of treatment of high blood pressure with losartan in Denmark]. / Omkostningseffektivitet ved hypertensionsbehandling med losartan i Danmark.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol for the treatment of hypertension, both from the point of view of society and from that of the health care sector, based on data from the LIFE study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The computations are based on a simple decision tree model, where the probability of stroke was obtained from the LIFE study, a double-blind, randomised clinical study of 9,193 patients with hypertensive left ventricle hypertrophy. RESULTS: The treatment of hypertension with losartan rather than atenolol entails a cost of DKK 19,668 per gained quality-adjusted life year (QALY), when only the cost of the health care sector is taken into account, and DKK 72,564 if all costs to society are included. CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that treatment with losartan is cost-effective even when the uncertainty in both data and economic evaluations is taken into account.

Assessment of prescribing information for generic drugs manufactured in the Middle East and marketed in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Little research has assessed the quality of manufacturer-provided prescribing information or documented differences in key aspects of drug information among different marketed generic products of the same drug, particularly in the Middle East and Arabian Gulf. We assessed the quality of written prescribing information for selected generic drugs marketed in Saudi Arabia and manufactured in various countries of the Middle East. METHODS: We assessed the correctness and completeness of information pertaining to indications, dosage, cautions/contraindications, side effects and drug interactions in 37 package inserts for generic products registered in Saudi Arabia and manufactured in the Middle East, including atenolol (6 inserts), fluoxetine (4 inserts), ciprofloxacin (11 inserts), metformin (7 inserts), and omeprazole (9 inserts). We also described deficiencies in the quality and quantity of manufacturer-provided information that could be misleading to patients and prescribers. RESULTS: We found substantial disagreement in information between generic package inserts versus the British National Formulary and the package insert of the brand product marketed in Saudi Arabia. A cumulative average of 63 +/- 16% of drug information indicators were in agreement with these standard references. Section headings with the least conformity with study references were those related to dosage (57 +/- 28%) and side effects (54 +/- 30%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that national authorities should implement appropriate measures aimed at removing misleading and incorrect information in generic package inserts and incorporating crucial prescribing information that is missing. National authorities in the Middle East and Arabian Gulf should strengthen collaboration and information interchange among each other and with international agencies to maintain common quality standards for delivering information through package inserts.

A cost-utility analysis of losartan versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy.

INTRODUCTION: The LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) study demonstrated a 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke or death) for patients with hypertension and electrocardiographically diagnosed left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) treated with losartan compared with atenolol. Losartan recipients also had a 25% relative risk reduction for stroke compared with atenolol recipients. Incorporating the results found in the LIFE study into an economic model, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing losartan with atenolol in the treatment of 67-year old patients with hypertension and LVH. METHODS: A Markov state transition model, based on published results of the LIFE trial (mean follow-up of 4.8 years), was utilised to extrapolate the outcomes observed in this trial to the patients' lifetime. Utility estimates for the associated health states were obtained from various published sources. Lifetime treatment costs were calculated adopting a societal perspective. Both costs and benefits were discounted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The estimated ICER for losartan versus atenolol was 1337 Canadian dollars per QALY gained (1 Canadian dollar =0.75 US dollars, 2002 values). This ICER was robust to extensive sensitivity analysis, demonstrating a 95% probability that the ICER would be <20,000 Canadian dollars per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: From a Canadian societal perspective, losartan appears to be a cost-effective alternative to atenolol in patients with hypertension and LVH. The estimated ICERs, including the sensitivity analyses, were within the range of cost-effectiveness ratios for various currently funded interventions and drugs in developed countries.