Necessity of a systematic annual consultation in primary care to better improve detection and control of hypertension?

BACKGROUND: In 2015, more than 11 million patients treated for arterial hypertension in France. According to several studies in the general population, about 50% of hypertensive subjects are treated and about 20% are treated and controlled. There is very few data in general medicine. Our work has studied how hypertension control may have differed in general medicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out in a rural health centre (Domfront, Normandy, France) on subjects aged 40 to 65 years in 2018. A subject was considered to be hypertensive if his blood pressure (taken in the office in routine care) was greater than 140/90 or if it was treated with antihypertensive drugs. OUTCOMES: Of 1,925 subjects, there were 54.3% women, aged 54.6 ± 7.1 years. The mean blood pressure was 127 ± 13/76 ± 8 mmHg, 60.6% (682/1,127) were overweight and 5.0% (96/1,925) were diabetic. 646 (33.6%) were hypertensive and 410 hypertensive (63.5%) were treated. 39.0% (252/646) were treated and controlled. DISCUSSION: In general medicine, blood pressure control seems to be better than in the general population, whereas the general practitioner is often the first contact with the healthcare system. Poor blood pressure control in the general population can be explained by the lack of general medicine consultation for untreated hypertensive subjects. A systematic annual consultation in general practice could be proposed for this specific population.

[ECOVIR: Study of a primary care cohort in of patients with Acute Respiratory Infections in Normandy, an example of pluri-professional hospital-primary care coordination]. / ECOVIR : mise en place d'une cohorte en soins primaires, un exemple de coopération pluri-professionnelle ville-hôpital.

Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) need be better understood and more effectively treated, especially insofar as they are of pivotal importance in public health, particularly during a crisis such as the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. The prospective, multicentric cohort study of viral codetections in respiratory samples study known as ECOVIR was conducted in Normandy, France during two winters (2018-2019, 2019-2020). The objective of the project was to create a biobank of respiratory tract samples from patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) for ARI symptoms. ECOVIR involved 36 GP investigators (GPI), from 8 health care centers throughout Normandy. Six hundred and eighty-five patients with ARI symptoms were included; naso-pharyngeal samples were taken by the GPIs and subsequently analyzed in virology laboratories for the purposes of viral codetection. The median of inclusions was 16 patients for each of the 31 actively participating GPIs over the two winters (CI25-75% [4.75; 27]). By D7, 92% of the patients contacted had responded to our call for participation, enabling us to obtain clinical, environmental and socio-demographic data. Through this study, we created an original functional network, thereby establishing a viable link between research and primary care, which is generally underrepresented in research protocols, even though it constitutes the cornerstone of the French health care system, especially during this prolonged period of sanitary crisis.

[Impact of stopping reimbursement of olmesartan for hypertensive patients in primary care]. / Impact du déremboursement de l'olmésartan chez les patients hypertendus en soins premiers.

AIMS OF STUDY: Since January 2017, olmesartan-based treatment are no longer reimbursed by French national health insurance. Indeed, enteropathy cases, potentially lethal, were described in relation to this medication. Objectives were to study the impact of stopping the reimbursement of olmesartan for hypertensive patients. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A descriptive retrospective study was performed with data from two primary care facilities in French occidental Normandy. To evaluate the blood pressure control, different blood pressure measurements were considered during the year before (period 1) and the year after (period 2) potential stopping olmesartan. A medico-economic analysis was also realized. RESULTS: From June 2015 to July 2017, 107 hypertensive patients treated by olmesartan were included. Among them, 47 patients (44%) had an antihypertensive monotherapy. olmesartan had been mainly switched by another sartan (75%, 80/107) including valsartan (59%, 47/80). Mean blood pressures during period 1 and period 2 were not statistically different. Moreover, 83% of patients were initially controlled with olmesartan and 81% after switching medication (P=0,86). The use of olmesartan generated an additional cost of 58% compared to the other drugs that replaced it during period 2. CONCLUSIONS: Stopping olmesartan reimbursement didn't seem to have a significant impact on blood pressure control of hypertensive patients while its cost is significant. In addition to potential serious side effects, olmesartan has not shown any improvement in cardiovascular morbi-mortality.