Characteristics, management, and blood pressure control in patients with apparent resistant hypertension in the US.

Background: Per treatment guidelines, resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) while taking 3 concomitant antihypertensives (AHTs) or controlled BP while taking ≥4 AHTs. Characteristics, AHT therapy use, and BP control were analyzed in US patients with hypertension who were prescribed ≥3 classes of AHT medications. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the Optum® Electronic Health Record Database evaluated patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of hypertension classified based on the number of prescribed AHT medication classes (3, 4, or ≥5). For the primary analysis, uncontrolled hypertension was defined as systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥90 mmHg. For secondary analyses, uncontrolled hypertension was defined as SBP ≥130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 mmHg. Results: 207,705 patients with hypertension and concurrent use of ≥3 AHT medication classes were included. Diuretics, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, and CCBs were the most prescribed classes; thiazides and thiazide-like agents were the most prescribed diuretics. Among patients who were prescribed 3, 4, or ≥5 AHT medication classes, approximately 70% achieved a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg; approximately 40% achieved BP <130/80 mmHg. After ≥1 year of follow-up, the number of concurrent AHT medication classes was unchanged from baseline in the majority of patients and the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) was similar. Conclusions: This study illustrates suboptimal BP control in many patients with apparent resistant hypertension despite the use of multidrug regimens and suggests a need for new drug classes and regimens that effectively manage resistant hypertension.

Combination anticoagulant or P2Y12 inhibitor with low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone in patients at risk or with documented coronary and/or peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to identify, summarize and quantify randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence evaluating combination anticoagulant or P2Y12 inhibitor with low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). METHODS: We performed an updated search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE through 23 August 2021 to identify RCTs of adult patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD that compared combination anticoagulant or P2Y12 inhibitor with low-dose aspirin to low-dose aspirin alone. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) and bleeding. When needed, outcomes were pooled using random-effects models to generate hazard or risk ratios (HRs or RRs) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted ITCs using subsequent pooled HRs/RRs were then performed. RESULTS: Six publications reporting the results of two unique RCTs (one evaluating clopidogrel + aspirin vs. aspirin alone and the other rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily + aspirin vs. aspirin alone) were analyzed. The ITC suggested that rivaroxaban + aspirin was associated with a lower risk of MACEs compared with clopidogrel + aspirin (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68-0.98). When looking at the individual components of MACE, rivaroxaban + aspirin was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular death (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.57-0.98) and stroke (RR = 0.67, 95 CI = 0.49-0.93) and similar risk of MI (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.70-1.23) versus clopidogrel + aspirin. No evidence of a difference in moderate-to-severe bleeding, fatal bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was seen between the two treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to clopidogrel + low-dose aspirin, the use of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily + low-dose aspirin reduced the risk of MACE, CV death and stroke including ischemic stroke in patients with or at high risk for chronic CAD and/or PAD. These benefits of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily + low-dose aspirin compared to clopidogrel + low-dose aspirin appear to be achieved without significantly increasing patients' risk of moderate-to-severe bleeding, including ICH or fatal bleeding.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Therapy Use in a Diverse New Mexican Population.

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences, attitudes, and experiences in use of complementary and alternative medicines and therapy (CAMT) in people living in New Mexico (NM). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Clinics staffed by the University of New Mexico College of Pharmacy faculty between September 2009 and August 2011 in Albuquerque, NM. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years of age or older or parents of patients younger than age 18 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics for survey results and mean scores for attitudinal items. Chi-square, t-test, and analysis of variance were used to compare differences between groups across demographic variables. RESULTS: A convenience sample yielded 263 completed surveys. Of the respondents, 62% were male, 39% were single, and 50% were Hispanic. Nearly 56% of respondents used CAMT in the previous 6 months; 38% used CAMT in addition to and 11% used CAMT instead of prescription medications. Average number of CAMT used per respondent was 2.3 ± 1.6. A majority of respondents indicated that their CAMT use in the previous 6 months was useful, a good idea, easy to use, and likely to continue. CAMT use was significantly higher in female respondents (p = 0.03), those with a higher education level (p < 0.01), and those with a higher household income level (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of CAMT is high in a diverse population of patients. Older respondents were more likely to use CAMT in addition to prescription medications, and younger respondents were more likely to use CAMT instead of prescription medications. Providers need to consider CAMT use when discussing treatment options with patients.

Assessing disparities in the receipt of inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions for asthma by Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients.

RATIONALE: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used in the management of asthma. Prior research suggests that access to ICS among patients with asthma may vary by ethnicity. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were to determine if there is a difference in the proportion of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients with asthma in the receipt of an ICS prescription and to determine independent predictors for the receipt of an ICS prescription for asthma. METHODS: The 2009 U.S. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to compare the receipt of ICS prescription among patients with asthma with the following inclusion criteria: Hispanic and non-Hispanic white ethnicity, age over 4 years, and diagnostic codes for asthma. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the influence of race/ethnicity and other significant factors on the receipt of an ICS prescription. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,469 patients with asthma, corresponding to a weighted sample of 14,401,069 U.S. patients with asthma who met the inclusion criteria, represented by 16.1% Hispanic, 59.5% female, and mean age of 39.9 years. Among non-Hispanic white patients with asthma, 39.7% (35% children and 41% adults) had a receipt of an ICS prescription compared with 22.2% of Hispanic patients (23.9% children and 21.2% adults); P < 0.001. In the multiple regression model, Hispanic patients aged 18 years or older had 43% lower odds (odds ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.9) of having a receipt of an ICS prescription compared with non-Hispanic white patients, independent of other factors. There was no significant difference in receipt of an ICS prescription between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white children with asthma (aged 4-17 yr). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in the receipt of ICS prescription between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white adult patients with asthma could result in suboptimal asthma management, a higher rate of exacerbations, and higher health care costs in this growing minority population. The differences and potential disparities in the receipt of an ICS prescription between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients with asthma warrant further investigation to better understand the reasons for such disparities, along with their impact on the U.S. health care burden and interventions that can be undertaken to reduce these disparities.