A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the role and value of written information available to patients about individual medicines from the perspective of patients, carers and professionals. To determine how effective this information is in improving patients' knowledge and understanding of treatment and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases searched to late 2004, experts in information design, and stakeholder workshops (including patients and patient organisations). REVIEW METHODS: Data from selected studies were tabulated and the results were qualitatively synthesised along with findings from the information design and stakeholder workshop strands. RESULTS: Most people do not value the written information they receive. They had concerns about the use of complex language and poor visual presentation and in most cases the research showed that the information did not increase knowledge. The research showed that patients valued written information that was tailored to their individual circumstances and illness, and that contained a balance of harm and benefit information. Most patients wanted to know about any adverse effects that could arise. Patients require information to help decision-making about whether to take a medicine or not and (once taking a medicine) with ongoing decisions about the management of the medicine and interpreting symptoms. Patients did not want written information to be a substitute for spoken information from their prescriber. While not everyone wanted written information, those who did wanted sufficient detail to meet their need. Some health professionals thought that written information for patients should be brief and simple, with concerns about providing side-effect information. They saw increasing compliance as a prime function, in contrast to patients who saw an informed decision not to take a medicine as an acceptable outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a quantitative and qualitative review, an exploration of best practice in information design, plus the input of patients at stakeholder workshops, allowed this review to look at all perspectives. There is a gap between currently provided leaflets and information which patients would value and find more useful. The challenge is to develop methods of provision flexible enough to allow uptake of varying amounts and types of information, depending on needs at different times in an illness. This review has identified a number of areas where future research could be improved in terms of the robustness of its design and conduct, and the use of patient-focused outcomes. The scope for this research includes determining the content, delivery and layout of statutory leaflets that best meet patients' needs, and providing individualised information, which includes both benefit and harm information. In particular, studies of the effectiveness and role and value of Internet-based medicines information are needed.

Potassium supplementation for the management of primary hypertension in adults.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence on the effects of potassium on blood pressure is inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of potassium supplementation on health outcomes and blood pressure in people with elevated blood pressure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ISI Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, CAB abstracts, and reference lists of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: 1) RCTs of a parallel or crossover design comparing oral potassium supplements with placebo, no treatment, or usual care; 2) treatment and follow-up >=8 weeks; 3) participants over 18 years, with raised systolic blood pressure (SBP) >=140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >=85 mmHg); 4) SBP and DBP reported at end of follow-up. We excluded trials where: participants were pregnant; received antihypertensive medication which changed during the study; or potassium supplementation was combined with other interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Random effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCT's (n=483), with eight to 16 weeks follow-up, met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of five trials (n=425) with adequate data indicated that potassium supplementation compared to control resulted in a large but statistically non-significant reductions in SBP (mean difference: -11.2, 95% CI: -25.2 to 2.7) and DBP (mean difference: -5.0, 95% CI: -12.5 to 2.4). The substantial heterogeneity between trials was not explained by potassium dose, quality of trials or baseline blood pressure. Excluding one trial in an African population with very high baseline blood pressure resulted in smaller overall reductions in blood pressure (SBP mean difference: -3.9, 95% CI: -8.6 to 0.8; DBP mean difference: -1.5, 95% CI: -6.2 to 3.1). Further sensitivity analysis restricted to two high quality trials (n=138) also found non-significant reductions in blood pressure (SBP mean difference: -7.1, 95% CI: -19.9 to 5.7; DBP mean difference: -5.5, 95% CI: -14.5 to 3.5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found no statistically significant effect of potassium supplementation on blood pressure. Because of the small number of participants in the two high quality trials, the short duration of follow-up, and the unexplained heterogeneity between trials, the evidence about the effect of potassium supplementation on blood pressure is not conclusive. Further high quality RCTs of longer duration are required to clarify whether potassium supplementation can reduce blood pressure and improve health outcomes.

Combined calcium, magnesium and potassium supplementation for the management of primary hypertension in adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that increasing dietary intakes of calcium, potassium or magnesium separately may reduce BP to a small degree over the short term. It is unclear whether increasing intakes of a combination of these minerals produces a larger reduction in BP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of combined mineral supplementation as a treatment for primary hypertension in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ISI Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, CAB abstracts, and reference lists of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review. The search was unrestricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: 1) RCTs of a parallel or crossover design comparing oral supplements comprising a combination of potassium, and/or calcium, and/or magnesium with placebo, no treatment, or usual care; 2) treatment and follow-up >=8 weeks; 3) participants over 18 years old, with raised systolic blood pressure (SBP) >=140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >=85 mmHg with no known primary cause; 4) SBP and DBP reported at end of follow-up. We excluded trials where participants were pregnant, or received antihypertensive medication which changed during the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Random effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (n=277) with between 24 and 28 weeks follow-up. Three combinations of minerals were investigated: potassium & magnesium, calcium & magnesium, and calcium & potassium. One trial investigated combinations of calcium & magnesium and of calcium & potassium, and for each found a statistically non-significant increase in both SBP and DBP. All three trials investigated the combination of potassium & magnesium. None of the trials provided data on mortality or morbidity. The combination of potassium & magnesium compared to control resulted in statistically non-significant reductions in both SBP (mean difference = -4.6 mmHg, 95% CI: -9.9 to 0.7) and DBP (mean difference = -3.8 mmHg, 95% CI: -9.5 to 1.8), although the results were heterogeneous (I(2)=68% and 85% for SBP and DBP respectively).A sensitivity analysis using alternative reported values which accounted for missing data had very little effect on DBP but resulted in a larger, statistically significant reduction in SBP (mean difference = -5.8 mmHg, 95% CI: -10.5 to -1.0). The quality of the trials was not well reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no robust evidence that supplements of any combination of potassium, magnesium or calcium reduce mortality, morbidity or BP in adults. More trials are needed to investigate whether the combination of potassium & magnesium is effective.

Magnesium supplementation for the management of essential hypertension in adults.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence on the effects of magnesium on blood pressure is inconsistent. Metabolic and experimental studies suggest that magnesium may have a role in the regulation of blood pressure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of magnesium supplementation as treatment for primary hypertension in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ISI Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, CAB abstracts, and reference lists of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: 1) RCTs of a parallel or crossover design comparing oral magnesium supplementation with placebo, no treatment, or usual care; 2) treatment and follow-up >/=8 weeks; 3) participants over 18 years old, with raised systolic blood pressure (SBP) >/=140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >/=85 mmHg; 4) SBP and DBP reported at end of follow-up. We excluded trials where: participants were pregnant; received antihypertensive medication which changed during the study; or magnesium supplementation was combined with other interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Random effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (n=545) with eight to 26 weeks follow-up met our inclusion criteria. The results of the individual trials were heterogeneous. Combining all trials, participants receiving magnesium supplements as compared to control did not significantly reduce SBP (mean difference: -1.3 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.0 to 1.5, I(2)=67%), but did statistically significantly reduce DBP (mean difference: -2.2 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.4 to -0.9, I(2)=47%). Sensitivity analyses excluding poor quality trials yielded similar results. Sub-group analyses and meta-regression indicated that heterogeneity between trials could not be explained by dose of magnesium, baseline blood pressure or the proportion of males among the participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In view of the poor quality of included trials and the heterogeneity between trials, the evidence in favour of a causal association between magnesium supplementation and blood pressure reduction is weak and is probably due to bias. This is because poor quality studies generally tend to over-estimate the effects of treatment. Larger, longer duration and better quality double-blind placebo controlled trials are needed to assess the effect of magnesium supplementation on blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes.

Calcium supplementation for the management of primary hypertension in adults.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic studies suggest calcium may have a role in the regulation of blood pressure. Some epidemiological studies have reported that people with a higher intake of calcium tend to have lower blood pressure. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reached conflicting conclusions about whether oral calcium supplementation can reduce blood pressure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of oral calcium supplementation as a treatment for primary hypertension in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ISI Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, CAB abstracts, and reference lists of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: 1) RCTs comparing oral calcium supplementation with placebo, no treatment, or usual care; 2) treatment and follow-up >/=8 weeks; 3) participants over 18 years old, with raised systolic blood pressure (SBP) >/=140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >/=85 mmHg; 4) SBP and DBP reported at end of follow-up. We excluded trials where: participants were pregnant; received antihypertensive medication which changed during the study; or calcium supplementation was combined with other interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Random effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (n=485), with between eight and 15 weeks follow-up. The results of the individual trials were heterogeneous. Combining all trials, participants receiving calcium supplementation as compared to control had a statistically significant reduction in SBP (mean difference: -2.5 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.5 to -0.6, I(2 )= 42%), but not DBP (mean difference: -0.8 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.1 to 0.4, I(2) = 48%). Sub-group analyses indicated that heterogeneity between trials could not be explained by dose of calcium or baseline blood pressure. Heterogeneity was reduced when poor quality trials were excluded. The one trial reporting adequate concealment of allocation and the one trial reporting adequate blinding yielded results consistent with the primary meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In view of the poor quality of included trials and the heterogeneity between trials, the evidence in favour of causal association between calcium supplementation and blood pressure reduction is weak and is probably due to bias. This is because poor quality studies generally tend to over-estimate the effects of treatment. Larger, longer duration and better quality double-blind placebo controlled trials are needed to assess the effect of calcium supplementation on blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes.