PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Evangelos Kontopantelis

Publications and source records attributed to Evangelos Kontopantelis.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Urate-lowering effects of losartan: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and target trial emulation.

Common in hypertensive patients, hyperuricaemia is often exacerbated by guideline-recommended antihypertensive therapies such as thiazide diuretics. Losartan is known as an angiotensin II receptor type 1 antagonist with a uricosuric effect, but the magnitude of its efficacy in lowering urate has not been quantified versus a placebo-reference. We sought to quantify the urate-lowering effect of losartan versus placebo using two complementary approaches. We first conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to quantify the effect of losartan on serum urate levels versus placebo. We then applied a target trial emulation framework in the UK Biobank as a secondary source of data and a replication experiment. The meta-analysis of six prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including 1119 losartan-treated patients and 1093 controls, demonstrated that losartan reduced serum urate levels by approximately 0.29 mg/dL relative to placebo (95% CI: -0.46 to -0.12, p = 0.0009). In the target trial emulation, 23 losartan-treated individuals showed a reduction in serum urate of approximately 0.35 mg/dL (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.03, p = 0.03) when compared with 92 matched controls, and after accounting for 12 potential confounders including established urate-lowering therapies. Our results provide evidence for a modest yet consistent urate-lowering potential of losartan. This modest biochemical effect (~0.3 mg/dL) may be an attractive option to mitigate the diuretic-induced urate elevation. Thus, losartan can be considered as a favourable antihypertensive choice for patients managed with diuretics or those who are at risk of hyperuricaemia/gout.

Losartan↗
PubMed2006

Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, after a series of national initiatives associated with marked improvements in the quality of care, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom introduced a pay-for-performance contract for family practitioners. This contract increases existing income according to performance with respect to 146 quality indicators covering clinical care for 10 chronic diseases, organization of care, and patient experience. METHODS: We analyzed data extracted automatically from clinical computing systems for 8105 family practices in England in the first year of the pay-for-performance program (April 2004 through March 2005), data from the U.K. Census, and data on characteristics of individual family practices. We examined the proportion of patients deemed eligible for a clinical quality indicator for whom the indicator was met (reported achievement) and the proportion of the total number of patients with a medical condition for whom a quality indicator was met (population achievement), and we used multiple regression analysis to determine the extent to which practices achieved high scores by classifying patients as ineligible for quality indicators (exception reporting). RESULTS: The median reported achievement in the first year of the new contract was 83.4 percent (interquartile range, 78.2 to 87.0 percent). Sociodemographic characteristics of the patients (age and socioeconomic features) and practices (size of practice, number of patients per practitioner, age of practitioner, and whether the practitioner was medically educated in the United Kingdom) had moderate but significant effects on performance. Exception reporting by practices was not extensive (median rate, 6 percent), but it was the strongest predictor of achievement: a 1 percent increase in the rate of exception reporting was associated with a 0.31 percent increase in reported achievement. Exception reporting was high in a small number of practices: 1 percent of practices excluded more than 15 percent of patients. CONCLUSIONS: English family practices attained high levels of achievement in the first year of the new pay-for-performance contract. A small number of practices appear to have achieved high scores by excluding large numbers of patients by exception reporting. More research is needed to determine whether these practices are excluding patients for sound clinical reasons or in order to increase income.

Chronic Disease↗