Prescribing Of Antihypertensive Medications Research Articles

A Review on Hypertensive Drug Prescription

Hypertension is considered to be the vital reason of mobidity and mortality in the society. It is an important risk aspect for cerebro-vascular, cardiovascular, and renal problems. A number of national and international guidelines for the management of hypertension have been published. The increasing occurrence of hypertension and the frequently escalating expenditure of its treatment control the prescribing patterns amongst physicians and compliance to the treatment by the patients. from the time when several years ago, diuretics were calculated as the first-line drugs for management of hypertension therapy; however, the recent guidelines by the Joint National Commission (JNC8 guidelines) advise both calcium channel blockers in addition to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors as first-line drugs, in adding up to diuretics. This assessment aims on the antihypertensive medication utilization, adherence to treatment by patients, and physicians’ adherence to guidelines in prescribing medications in various settings. The antihypertensive medication prescribing pattern studies assist to observe, estimate and essential changes to the prescribing practice to get rational and cost-effective treatment. In addition, there should always be an updating of recommended guidelines and inventive drug formulations, and prescription monitoring evaluations help in rational use of antihypertensive drugs, which can be tailored to go with the patients' requirements, counting those in the emergent countries.

The outcomes of the postulated interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and the renin-angiotensin system on the clinician's attitudes toward hypertension treatment.

Concern has arisen about the role played in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). This study was designed to assess the practice behaviors of physicians toward hypertension treatment with ACE-i or ARBs during the COVID-19 pandemic. A self-administered survey questionnaire consisting of 26 questions about current hypertension treatment with ACE-i/ ARBs was applied to cardiologists, internists, and family physicians in central and western Turkey, between 01 and 19 May 2020. A total of 460 physicians were approached, and 220 (47.8%) participated in the study. Of the total respondents, 78.7% reported that they had not changed their antihypertensive medication prescribing pattern, 8.6% of clinicians had changed ACE-i/ ARBs medicine of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and 12.7% of them were undecided. The median (±interquartile range) score indicating general reliance level of physicians in ACE-i/ARBs therapy was 8 ± 4 (range, 1–10). In multiple comparison analyses, the general reliance level in ACE-i/ARBs, reliance level when starting a new ACEi/ARBs and changing behavior in heart failure patients were significantly different with regard to the specialties (p:0.02, p:0.009, p:0.005 respectively). Although most of the physicians found the publications about ACE-i/ ARBs during the COVID-19 pandemic untrustworthy, there were variable levels of knowledge and reliance among different physicians and specialty groups. In general, the ACE-i/ ARBs prescribing habits were not affected by safety concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey.

Harnessing the potential of electronic general practice pathology data in Australia: An examination of the quality use of pathology for type 2 diabetes patients

BackgroundDespite the importance of pathology testing in diagnosis and disease monitoring, there is little in-depth research about pathology test ordering in general practice and how it impacts patient outcomes. This is in part due to the limited availability of high-quality data. With the now-widespread use of electronic software in general practice comes the potential for electronic patient data to be used for research leading to better understanding of general practice activities, including pathology testing. ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine the usefulness of electronic general practice pathology data to: (1) identify patients’ characteristics, (2) monitor quality of care, (3) evaluate intervention effects, (4) identify variations in patient care, and (5) measure patient outcomes. An exemplar study evaluating kidney function testing in type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 diabetes) compared to guidelines was used to demonstrate the value of pathology data. Materials and methodsDe-identified electronic data from approximately 200 general practices in Victoria were extracted using Outcome Health’s Population Level Analysis & Reporting (POLAR) Aurora research platform. Our study population included patients ≥18 diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before July 2016. Data from July 2016 to June 2018 were used to i) determine frequency of kidney function tests (KFT), and ii) identify whether antihypertensive medications were prescribed for abnormal KFT results. ResultsThere were 20,514 active patients with type 2 diabetes identified from the data. The age and gender standardised estimate of diabetes prevalence was 4.9%, consistent with Australian estimates (5.2%). Sociodemographic features of prevalence, including higher prevalence in older males, were also consistent with previous Australian estimates.Kidney function testing was performed annually, as recommended by guidelines, in 75.7% of patients, with higher annual testing observed in patients managed under general practice incentive programs (80.1%) than those who were not (72.2%). Antihypertensive medications were prescribed as recommended in 77.4% of patients with suspected microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria based on KFT results. DiscussionEvaluations using data from diabetes patients in this study illustrate the value of electronic data for identifying patients with the condition of interest (e.g. type 2 diabetes) along with sociodemographic characteristics. This allows for the ability to undertake analyses on pathology testing factors and the identification of variation compared to guidelines, which has a potential to ensure quality of care. Its potential to identify associations with incentive programs further demonstrates the advantages of the data’s longitudinal nature. These include the ability to assess temporal order and time interval of tests as a marker of quality of monitoring and evaluate intervention effects on a cohort over time. Finally, analyses on antihypertensive medication prescribing in patients with suspected micro/macroalbuminuria exemplified the electronic data’s usefulness in monitoring patient outcomes, such as appropriate prescribing based on pathology test results. ConclusionsElectronic general practice data is an important resource which can provide valuable insights about the quality use of pathology. There are clear benefits to patients for better monitoring, and consequent better outcomes, and to inform policymakers about the best ways to channel resources to enhance the quality of care.

Techniques to improve intradialytic haemodynamic stability.

Intra-dialytic hypotension (IDH) remains a significant problem for patients undergoing chronic haemodialysis. IDH causes symptoms that degrade patients' experience, compromises dialysis delivery and is strongly associated with adverse patient outcomes. Greater understanding of the link between IDH and dialysis-induced ischaemia in heart and brain has characterized mechanistic pathways, with repeated episodes of ischaemia resulting in organ dysfunction. This review provides updates from published evidence over the last 2 years across the range of potential interventions for IDH. A literature search was undertaken to identify articles published in peer review journals between January 2016 and April 2018 using terms 'intradialytic hypotension,' 'haemodynamic instability,' 'ESRF,' 'renal replacement therapy,' 'dialysis' in Medline and EMBASE and identified 58 references from which 15 articles were included in this review. Interventions included: cooling the dialysate; sodium profiling; convective therapies; strategies to minimize inter-dialytic weight gain (IDWG) and improve accuracy of target weight assessment; prescribing of antihypertensive medications; and carnitine supplementation. IDH remains a significant clinical problem. Recent evidence from the last 2 years does not support any major changes to current practice, with cooling of the dialysate and reduction of IDWG remaining cornerstones of management.

Abstract NS1: Blood Pressure Medications at Hospital Discharge

Introduction: Recurrent strokes carry a higher risk of disability and mortality than first-ever acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Several studies have demonstrated that controlling blood pressure (BP) reduces the risk of recurrent stroke. National guidelines suggest diuretics and ACE inhibitors (ACE-i) may be preferred for BP control in stroke survivors. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be a wide variation in the classes of blood pressure medications prescribed to adult AIS patients at the time of hospital discharge. Methods: We reviewed 483 consecutive adult AIS patients admitted to our institution from January 2015 to April 2017. ICH, SAH and TIA patients were excluded. BP medications were categorized by type according to the Get with the Guidelines (GWTG) database. Hypertension was defined as a known past medical history of hypertension on admission. Exploratory and descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Baseline characteristics and discharge disposition are in shown in table 1. Of the 483 AIS patients, 373 (77.2%) had a known history of hypertension. Among the patients, 335 (90%) were prescribed BP medications at discharge, 135 (40%) received an ACE-i , 69 (21%) an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), 121 (36%) a diuretic, 182 (54%) a beta blocker, 134 (40%) a calcium channel blocker, and 10% other BP medications. Conclusions: There is wide variation in classes of BP medications prescribed at hospital discharge after AIS. Although ACE-i and diuretics are recommended in the AHA/ASA guidelines for BP treatment after AIS, they were not prescribed to the majority of AIS patients. Further studies are needed to evaluate in-hospital antihypertensive medication prescribing patterns in a national multi-center study.

Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD. Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.

A review on prescribing patterns of antihypertensive drugs.

Hypertension continues to be an important public health concern because of its associated morbidity, mortality and economic impact on the society. It is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and renal complications. It has been estimated that by 2025, 1.56 billion individuals will have hypertension. The increasing prevalence of hypertension and the continually increasing expense of its treatment influence the prescribing patterns among physicians and compliance to the treatment by the patients. A number of national and international guidelines for the management of hypertension have been published. Since many years ago, diuretics were considered as the first-line drugs for treatment of hypertension therapy; however, the recent guidelines by the Joint National Commission (JNC8 guidelines) recommend both calcium channel blockers as well as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as first-line drugs, in addition to diuretics. Antihypertensive drug combinations are generally used for effective long-term management and to treat comorbid conditions. This review focuses on the antihypertensive medication utilization, their cost factors, adherence to treatment by patients, and physicians’ adherence to guidelines in prescribing medications in different settings including Indian scenario. The antihypertensive medication prescribing pattern studies help in monitoring, evaluation and necessary modifications to the prescribing habits to achieve rational and cost-effective treatment. Additionally, periodic updating of recommended guidelines and innovative drug formulations, and prescription monitoring studies help in rational use of antihypertensive drugs, which can be tailored to suit the patients' requirements, including those in the developing countries.

Age Differences in Treatment and Control of Hypertension in US Physician Offices, 2003-2010: A Serial Cross-sectional Study

BackgroundEvidence-based and age-appropriate antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in outpatient settings is essential for optimal treatment outcomes. Recent guidelines, although controversial, recommended different blood pressure goals using age cutoff of 60 years. We describe recent age-specific national trends in antihypertensive prescribing patterns and blood pressure control in US office-based practices. MethodsWe analyzed all hypertension-related visits to physician offices from the latest available National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2003-2010). We identified trends of antihypertensive prescribing overall and by class, trends of hypertension control, age differences in antihypertensive prescribing patterns and hypertension control, predicted probabilities of hypertension control in subgroups, and correlates of hypertension control. ResultsThere were 16,729 physician office visits included in the analysis. Overall, the prescription of antihypertensive medication increased from 69.2% in 2003-2004 to 78.8% in 2009-2010 (Ptrend = .001), and the increased trend was consistent in both age groups (<60 and ≥60 years). This was accompanied by an improvement in the overall hypertension control (from 39.1% to 48.8%, Ptrend <.001). Antihypertensive prescribing patterns differ significantly between the 2 age groups. The proportions of visits with β-blocker (from 25.4% to 34.7%, Ptrend <.001) and angiotensin receptor blocker prescriptions (from 17.0% to 22.1%, Ptrend = .042) increased for older patients. The increased trend of β-blocker use persisted after excluding patients with compelling indications. Among treated patients, lower odds of blood pressure control were associated with African American race, presence of comorbidities, younger age, and insufficient insurance coverage. ConclusionsIn office-based practices, antihypertensive medication prescribing among US adults with hypertension increased significantly in recent years, which was accompanied by improvement in hypertension control. The prescribing patterns differed among younger and older patients, but continuous use of β-blockers without other compelling indications raises concerns.

Randomized Trial of the Effect of Pharmacist Prescribing on Improving Blood Pressure in the Community

Background— Hypertension control rates remain suboptimal. Pharmacists’ scope of practice is evolving, and their position in the community may be ideal for improving hypertension care. We aimed to study the impact of pharmacist prescribing on blood pressure (BP) control in community-dwelling patients. Methods and Results— We designed a patient-level, randomized, controlled trial, enrolling adults with above-target BP (as defined by Canadian guidelines) through c ommunity pharmacies, hospitals, or primary care teams in 23 communities in Alberta. Intervention group patients received an assessment of BP and cardiovascular risk, education on hypertension, prescribing of antihypertensive medications, laboratory monitoring, and monthly follow-up visits for 6 months (all by their pharmacist). Control group patients received a wallet card for BP recording, written hypertension information, and usual care from their pharmacist and physician. Primary outcome was the change in systolic BP at 6 months. A total of 248 patients (mean age, 64 years; 49% male) were enrolled. Baseline mean±SD systolic/diastolic BP was 150±14/84±11 mm Hg. The intervention group had a mean±SE reduction in systolic BP at 6 months of 18.3±1.2 compared with 11.8±1.9 mm Hg in the control group, an adjusted difference of 6.6±1.9 mm Hg ( P =0.0006). The adjusted odds of patients achieving BP targets was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.17–4.15 in favor of the intervention). Conclusions— Pharmacist prescribing for patients with hypertension resulted in a clinically important and statistically significant reduction in BP. Policy makers should consider an expanded role for pharmacists, including prescribing, to address the burden of hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00878566.

Use of IndiGO individualized clinical guidelines in primary care

ObjectiveTo determine if IndiGO individualized clinical guidelines could be implemented in routine practice and assess their effects on care and care experience.MethodsMatched comparison observational design. IndiGO individualized guidelines, based on a biomathematical simulation model, were used in shared decision-making. Physicians and patients viewed risk estimates and tailored recommendations in a dynamic user interface and discussed them for 5–10 min. Outcome measures were prescribing and dispensing of IndiGO-recommended medications, changes in physiological markers and predicted 5-year risk of heart attack and stroke, and physician and patient perceptions.Results489 patients using IndiGO were 4.9 times more likely to receive a statin prescription than were matched usual care controls (p=0.015). No effect was observed on prescribing of antihypertensive medications, but IndiGO-using patients were more likely to pick up at least one dispensing (p<0.05). No significant changes were observed in blood pressure or serum lipid levels. Predicted risk of heart attack or stroke decreased 1.6% among patients using IndiGO versus 1.0% among matched controls (p<0.01). Physician and patient experiences were positive to neutral.LimitationsWe could not assess the separate effects of individualized guidelines, user interface, and physician–patient discussions. Patient selection could have influenced results. The measure of risk reduction was not independent of the individualized guidelines.ConclusionsIndiGO individualized clinical guidelines were successfully implemented in primary care and were associated with increases in the use of cardioprotective medications and reduction in the predicted risk of adverse events, suggesting that a larger trial could be warranted.

A trial of indication based prescribing of antihypertensive medications during computerized order entry to improve problem list documentation

BackgroundMaintenance of problem lists in electronic medical records is required for the meaningful use incentive and by the Joint Commission. Linking indication with prescribed medications using computerized physician order entry (CPOE) can improve problem list documentation. Prescribing of antihypertensive medications is an excellent target for interventions to improve indication-based prescribing because antihypertensive medications often have multiple indications and are frequently prescribed. ObjectiveTo measure the accuracy and completeness of electronic problem list additions using indication-based prescribing of antihypertensives. DesignClinical decision support (CDS) was implemented so that orders of antihypertensives prompted ordering physicians to select from problem list additions indicated by that medication. An observational analysis of 1000 alerts was performed to determine the accuracy of physicians’ selections. ResultsAt least one accurate problem was placed 57.5% of the time. Inaccurate problems were placed 4.8% of the time. Accuracy was lower in medications with multiple indications and the likelihood of omitted problems was higher compared to medications whose only indication was hypertension. Attending physicians outperformed other clinicians. There was somewhat lower accuracy for inpatients compared to outpatients. ConclusionCDS using indication-based prescribing of antihypertensives produced accurate problem placement roughly two-thirds of time with fewer than 5% inaccurate problems placed. Performance of alerts was sensitive to the number of potential indications of the medication and attendings vs. other clinicians prescribing. Indication-based prescribing during CPOE can be used for problem list maintenance, but requires optimization.

Antihypertensive Medication Prescribing Patterns in a University Teaching Hospital

Treatment of hypertension among hospitalized patients represents an opportunity to improve blood pressure recognition and treatment. To address this issue, the authors examined patterns of antihypertensive medication prescribing among 5668 hypertensive inpatients. Outcomes were treatment with any antihypertensive medication and treatment with first-line therapy, defined as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, or calcium channel blockers. Logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, race, length of stay, service line, and comorbidity were used for all comparisons. The multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for treatment were higher for men (1.4, P<.001), older patients (2.5 for age older than 80 vs 1.0 for age younger than 40; P<.001), non-white race (1.2 vs 1.0 for white race; P<.004), and generalist service line (1.4 vs 1.0 for all other services; P<.001). Multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for receiving first-line agents were higher for older patients and generalist service line. Among surgical patients, receipt of medical consultation was only marginally associated with higher odds of antihypertensive or first-line treatment after adjustment for relevant clinical variables. Demographic factors and service line appear to play a major role in determining the likelihood of inpatient hypertension treatment. Understanding and addressing these disparities has the potential to incrementally improve hypertension control rates in the population.

Persistence with antihypertensive treatments: results of a 3-year follow-up cohort study

Effective treatment of hypertension requires continued prescribing of antihypertensive medications for many years. Persistence in prescribing habits, however, has been reported to be low. The study described herein - which is completely independent of pharmaceutical sponsors - was undertaken to evaluate persistence with antihypertensive treatment in Germany. A total of 13,763 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients were identified in the IMS Disease Analyzer database and observed for 3 years after their first antihypertensive prescription. The median age of the study cohort was 65 years, and 56% were female. One in four patient received no more than three prescriptions within 3 years. Persistence was longest for patients whose initial prescription was for a free combination based on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (median: 392.5 days), followed patients initially receiving a fixed combination, including angiotensin II receptor antagonists (208.5 days) and AIIRA monotherapy (168 days). Persistence was shortest with diuretics (57 days). Across all treatment groups, persistence after 3 years was 15.2%. Insurance status, sex and comorbidities were not found to impact persistence. Our data indicate that persistence differs markedly among the drug classes (p < or = 0.001) but that even persistence of the best drug class is not sufficient to provide for an adequate blood pressure control in the population. The largest decline in persistence occurred in the first 3 months of treatment. More research is needed to elucidate the causes of this early drop in persistence and to develop effective means of improving the currently unsatisfactory situation.

Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States: do the JNC V recommendations affect prescribing? Fifth Joint National Commission on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

The choice of pharmacological treatment for the approximately 50 million people in the United States with hypertension has important therapeutic and financial implications. To describe national antihypertensive medication prescribing patterns for 1992 and 1995; to explore the influence of the Fifth Joint National Committee on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC V), published in 1993, which recommended diuretics and beta-blockers as first-line antihypertensive therapy unless contraindicated; and to estimate the impact of these prescribing patterns on the cost of antihypertensive treatment. All prescriptions for drugs approved for the treatment of hypertension dispensed by 35000 retail pharmacies were tabulated for 1992 and 1995 (62% of all US retail pharmacies were surveyed). Number of prescriptions for each dosage form of medication and national cost estimates based on wholesale costs of medications dispensed. In 1992, of the 10 most frequently prescribed antihypertensive drugs, 3 were calcium antagonists, 3 were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, 3 were beta-blockers, and 1 was the combination of triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide. In 1995, 4 were calcium antagonists, 3 were ACE inhibitors, 1 was a beta-blocker, 1 was the combination of triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide, and 1 an alpha-blocker. In 1992, calcium antagonists accounted for 33% of antihypertensive prescriptions compared with 38% in 1995, ACE inhibitor use went from 25% to 33%, beta-blocker use from 18% to 11%, and diuretic use from 16% to 8%. The estimated wholesale costs for calcium antagonists in 1995 dollars increased from $2.67 billion in 1992 to $2.86 billion in 1995; ACE inhibitor costs increased from $1.37 billion to $1.67 billion; costs for diuretics declined from $353 million to $168 million; and costs for beta-blockers declined from $763 million to $433 million. From 1992 to 1995 use of calcium antagonists and ACE inhibitors for treatment of hypertension increased and diuretics and beta-blockers declined, suggesting that the recommendations from JNC V had little effect on prescribing patterns. The cost implications of these practice patterns are enormous.

Trends in Antihypertensive Drug Use in the United States

<h3>Context.</h3> —The choice of pharmacological treatment for the approximately 50 million people in the United States with hypertension has important therapeutic and financial implications. <h3>Objectives.</h3> —To describe national antihypertensive medication prescribing patterns for 1992 and 1995; to explore the influence of the Fifth Joint National Committee on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC V), published in 1993, which recommended diuretics and β-blockers as firstline antihypertensive therapy unless contraindicated; and to estimate the impact of these prescribing patterns on the cost of antihypertensive treatment. <h3>Design.</h3> —All prescriptions for drugs approved for the treatment of hypertension dispensed by 35000 retail pharmacies were tabulated for 1992 and 1995 (62% of all US retail pharmacies were surveyed). <h3>Main Outcome Measures.</h3> —Number of prescriptions for each dosage form of medication and national cost estimates based on wholesale costs of medications dispensed. <h3>Results.</h3> —In 1992, of the 10 most frequently prescribed antihypertensive drugs, 3 were calcium antagonists, 3 were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, 3 were β-blockers, and 1 was the combination of triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide. In 1995,4 were calcium antagonists, 3 were ACE inhibitors, 1 was a β-blocker, 1 was the combination of triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide, and 1 an a-blocker. In 1992, calcium antagonists accounted for 33% of antihypertensive prescriptions compared with 38% in 1995, ACE inhibitor use went from 25% to 33%, β-blocker use from 18% to 11% and diuretic use from 16% to 8%. The estimated wholesale costs for calcium antagonists in 1995 dollars increased from $2.67 billion in 1992 to $2.86 billion in 1995; ACE inhibitor costs increased from $1.37 billion to $1.67 billion; costs for diuretics declined from $353 million to $168 million; and costs for β-blockers declined from $763 million to $433 million. <h3>Conclusions.</h3> —From 1992 to 1995 use of calcium antagonists and ACE inhibitors for treatment of hypertension increased and diuretics and β-blockers declined, suggesting that the recommendations from JNC V had little effect on prescribing patterns. The cost implications of these practice patterns are enormous.

Therapeutic choice in the treatment of hypertension: Initial treatment of newly diagnosed hypertension and secular trends in the prescribing of anti hypertensive medications for medicaid patients

A “stepped-care” approach has been widely recommended for more than 10 years as an empiric method for the treatment of hypertension. This approach encourages the use of diuretics or beta blockers as initial monotherapy for hypertension. Although these and other antihypertensive regimens tested in clinical trials have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from cerebrovascular disease, their relative effectiveness in reducing the sequelae of coronary artery disease is not as well established. These findings, coupled with the development of new drug regimens, have led to a reexamination of the stepped-care guidelines. This re-examination will stimulate increased interest in the therapeutic choices made by practicing physicians, particularly because the newer drugs are more costly than the traditional treatments. To address this question, we performed two specific studies, using data bases from Michigan and Tennessee Medicaid programs. The first study analyzed prescriptions for newly diagnosed cases of essential hypertension. The second study analyzed secular trends in the prescribing of antihypertensive regimens since that time. The data suggest that in 1982 and 1983 (the time period under consideration in the first part of the study), physicians treating hypertension for Medicaid enrollees followed the stepped-care recommendations, the majority using diuretics as step-one monotherapy. The secular trend data in the second study showed a moderate decrease in the use of diuretics since 1983. There were marked increases in the use of newer antihypertensive medications such as calcium channel blockers and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor captopril. Because the costs of the newer drugs are substantially higher, a shift to these drugs would significantly increase the cost of treating hypertension in this country. Prospective, controlled trials are necessary to ascertain if the increased costs of the newly developed drugs are justified by potential benefits.