PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Finlay A McAlister

Publications and source records attributed to Finlay A McAlister.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Impact of opinion leader-endorsed evidence summaries on the quality of prescribing for patients with cardiovascular disease: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Local opinion leaders are educationally and socially influential physicians. Although they can accelerate the adoption of new evidence in hospitals, their impact on the quality of prescribing for outpatients has only been examined by a few studies. We hypothesized that an intervention consisting of patient-specific one-page evidence summaries, generated and endorsed by local opinion leaders, would improve prescribing of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in heart failure (HF) and that of statins in ischemic heart disease (IHD). METHODS: We conducted a community-based randomized controlled trial in patients with HF (not receiving ACE inhibitors or ARBs) and those with IHD (not receiving statins) who were recruited from 40 pharmacies and allocated either to the opinion leader intervention or to usual care based on randomization of their primary care physician. The primary outcome was an increase in the use of efficacious therapies (ACE inhibitors or ARBs in HF and statins in IHD) within 6 months; the secondary outcomes were prescribing changes for HF or IHD. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients participated in the study; 87 were allocated to the intervention, whereas 84 were assigned to the control group. The median age of the participants was 75 years; 103 (60%) were female, 54 (32%) had HF, and 117 (68%) had IHD. Overall, 21 (24%) intervention patients started receiving an efficacious medication within 6 months, as compared with 15 (18%) control subjects (relative risk of improvement 1.32, 95% CI 0.73-2.40, P = .31). In the HF subgroup, 38% of the intervention patients started receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy, as compared with 20% of control subjects (relative risk of improvement 1.90, 95% CI 0.76-4.72, P = .15). In the IHD subgroup, 17% of the intervention patients and 17% of the control subjects started receiving statin therapy (P = .97). CONCLUSIONS: The influence of local opinion leaders may be useful for improving the quality of cardiovascular prescribing in the community, but the benefits are likely modest and may be disease specific. Further studies on this method are warranted.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Strength of evidence for perioperative use of statins to reduce cardiovascular risk: systematic review of controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength of evidence underlying recommendations for use of statins during the perioperative period to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies with concurrent control groups. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases, the references of identified studies, international experts on perioperative medicine, and the authors of the primary studies. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data from studies that reported acute coronary syndromes or mortality in patients receiving or not receiving statins during the perioperative period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Random effects summary odds ratios for death or acute coronary syndrome during the perioperative period. RESULTS: 18 studies--two randomised trials (n=177), 15 cohort studies (n=799,632), and one case-control study (n=480)--assessed whether statins provide perioperative cardiovascular protection; 12 studies enrolled patients undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery, four enrolled patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery, and two enrolled patients undergoing various surgical procedures. In the randomised trials the summary odds ratio for death or acute coronary syndrome during the perioperative period with statin use was 0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.99) and the summary odds ratio in the cohort studies was 0.70 (0.57 to 0.87). Although the pooled cohort data provided a statistically significant result, statins were not randomly allocated, results in retrospective studies were larger (odds ratio 0.65, 0.50 to 0.84) than those in the prospective cohorts (0.91, 0.65 to 1.27), and dose, duration, and safety of statin use was not reported. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for routine administration of statins to reduce perioperative cardiovascular risk is inadequate.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed2006

Statins and outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia: population based prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether statins reduce mortality or need for admission to intensive care in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia; and to assess whether previously reported improvements in sepsis related outcomes were a result of the healthy user effect. DESIGN: Population based prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six hospitals in Capital Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted to hospital with pneumonia and categorised according to use of statins for at least one week before admission and during hospital stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite of in-hospital mortality or admission to an intensive care unit. RESULTS: Of 3415 patients with pneumonia admitted to hospital, 624 (18%) died or were admitted to an intensive care unit. Statin users were less likely to die or be admitted to an intensive care unit than non-users (50/325 (15%) v 574/3090 (19%), odds ratio 0.80, P=0.15). After more complete adjustment for confounding, however, the odds ratios changed from potential benefit (0.78, adjusted for age and sex) to potential harm (1.10, fully adjusted including propensity scores, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: Statins are not associated with reduced mortality or need for admission to an intensive care unit in patients with pneumonia; reports of benefit in the setting of sepsis may be a result of confounding.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Re-examining the efficacy of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In a recently published meta-analysis, investigators asserted that beta-blockers should not be used to treat hypertension. Because the pathophysiology of hypertension differs in older and younger patients, we designed this meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of beta-blockers in different age groups. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction and death. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension in preventing major cardiovascular outcomes. Both authors independently evaluated the eligibility of all trials. Trials enrolling older (mean age at baseline > or = 60 years) patients were separated from those enrolling younger (mean age < 60 years) patients. Data were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: Our analysis incorporated data from 145 811 participants in 21 hypertension trials. In placebo-controlled trials, beta-blockers reduced major cardiovascular outcomes in younger patients (risk ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99, based on 794 events in 19 414 patients) but not in older patients (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05, based on 1115 events in 8019 patients). In active comparator trials, beta-blockers demonstrated similar efficacy to other antihypertensive agents in younger patients (1515 events in 30 412 patients, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07) but not in older patients (7405 events in 79 775 patients, RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.10), with the excess risk being particularly marked for strokes (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30). INTERPRETATION: beta-blockers should not be considered first-line therapy for older hypertensive patients without another indication for these agents; however, in younger patients beta-blockers are associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2006

Aspirin use and outcomes in a community-based cohort of 7352 patients discharged after first hospitalization for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The safety of aspirin in heart failure (HF) has been called into question, particularly in those patients (1) without coronary disease, (2) with renal dysfunction, or (3) treated with low-dose angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and high-dose aspirin. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined prescription patterns and outcomes (all-cause mortality and/or HF readmission) in patients discharged from 103 Canadian hospitals between April 1999 and March 2001 after a first hospitalization for HF. Of 7352 patients with HF (mean age, 75 years; 44% without coronary disease and 29% with renal dysfunction), 2785 (38%) died or required HF readmission within the first year. Compared with nonusers, aspirin users were no more likely to die or require HF readmission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [0.91 to 1.16]), even in patients without coronary disease (HR, 0.98 [0.78 to 1.22]) or patients with renal dysfunction (HR, 1.13 [0.94 to 1.36]). On the other hand, users of ACE inhibitors were less likely to die or require HF readmission (HR, 0.87 [0.79 to 0.96]), even if they were using aspirin (HR, 0.86 [0.77 to 0.95]). There were no dose-dependent interactions between aspirin and ACE inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, aspirin use was not associated with an increase in mortality rates or HF readmission rates, and aspirin did not attenuate the benefits of ACE inhibitors, even in patients without coronary disease, patients with renal dysfunction, or patients treated with high-dose aspirin and low-dose ACE inhibitors.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

The 2006 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part I--Blood pressure measurement, diagnosis and assessment of risk.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and assessment of adults with high blood pressure. OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES: For persons in whom a high blood pressure value is recorded, a diagnosis of hypertension is dependent on the appropriate measurement of blood pressure, the level of the blood pressure elevation, the approach used to monitor blood pressure (office, ambulatory or home/self), and the duration of follow-up. In addition, the presence of cardiovascular risk factors and target organ damage should be assessed to determine the urgency, intensity and type of treatment. For persons diagnosed as having hypertension, estimating the overall risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes requires an assessment for other vascular risk factors and hypertensive target organ damage. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE searches were conducted from November 2004 to October 2005 to update the 2005 recommendations. Reference lists were scanned, experts were polled, and the personal files of the authors and subgroup members were used to identify other studies. Identified articles were reviewed and appraised using prespecified levels of evidence by content and methodological experts. As per previous years, the authors only included studies that had been published in the peer-reviewed literature and did not include evidence from abstracts, conference presentations or unpublished personal communications. RECOMMENDATIONS: The present document contains recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis of hypertension, and assessment of cardiovascular risk for adults with high blood pressure. These include the accurate measurement of blood pressure, criteria for the diagnosis of hypertension and recommendations for follow-up, assessment of overall cardiovascular risk, routine and optional laboratory testing, assessment for renovascular and endocrine causes, home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and the role of echocardiography for those with hypertension. Key features of the 2006 recommendations include continued emphasis on an expedited diagnosis of hypertension, an in-depth review of the role of global risk assessment in hypertension therapy, and the use of home/self blood pressure monitoring for patients with masked hypertension (subjects with hypertension who have a blood pressure that is normal in clinic but elevated on home/self measurement). VALIDATION: All recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence and were voted on by the 45 members of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Evidence-Based Recommendations Task Force. All recommendations reported herein received at least 95% consensus. These guidelines will continue to be updated annually.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2006

The 2006 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part II - Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for the management of hypertension in adults. OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES: For lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, evidence from randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews of trials was preferentially reviewed. Changes in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality were the primary outcomes of interest. For lifestyle interventions, blood pressure (BP) lowering was accepted as a primary outcome given the lack of long-term morbidity/mortality data in this field. For treatment of patients with kidney disease, the development of proteinuria or worsening of kidney function was also accepted as a clinically relevant primary outcome. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE searches were conducted from November 2004 to October 2005 to update the 2005 recommendations. In addition, reference lists were scanned and experts were contacted to identify additional published studies. All relevant articles were reviewed and appraised independently by content and methodological experts using prespecified levels of evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS: Lifestyle modifications to prevent and/or treat hypertension include the following: perform 30 min to 60 min of aerobic exercise four to seven days per week; maintain a healthy body weight (body mass index of 18.5 kg/m2 to 24.9 kg/m2) and waist circumference (less than 102 cm for men and less than 88 cm for women); limit alcohol consumption to no more than 14 standard drinks per week in men or nine standard drinks per week in women; follow a diet that is reduced in saturated fat and cholesterol and that emphasizes fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products; restrict salt intake; and consider stress management in selected individuals. Treatment thresholds and targets should take into account each individual's global atherosclerotic risk, target organ damage and comorbid conditions. BP should be lowered to less than 140/90 mmHg in all patients, and to less than 130/80 mmHg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease (regardless of the degree of proteinuria). Most adults with hypertension require more than one agent to achieve these target BPs. For adults without compelling indications for other agents, initial therapy should include thiazide diuretics. Other agents appropriate for first-line therapy for diastolic hypertension with or without systolic hypertension include beta-blockers (in those younger than 60 years), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (in nonblack patients), long-acting calcium channel blockers or angiotensin receptor antagonists. Other agents for first-line therapy for isolated systolic hypertension include long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers or angiotensin receptor antagonists. Certain comorbid conditions provide compelling indications for first-line use of other agents: in patients with angina, recent myocardial infarction or heart failure, beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy; in patients with diabetes mellitus, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists (or in patients without albuminuria, thiazides or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers) are appropriate first-line therapies; and in patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease, ACE inhibitors are recommended. All hypertensive patients should have their fasting lipids screened, and those with dyslipidemia should be treated using the thresholds, targets and agents recommended by the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Working Group on the management of dyslipidemia and the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Selected patients with hypertension, but without dyslipidemia, should also receive statin therapy and/or acetylsalicylic acid therapy. VALIDATION: All recommendations were graded according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the 45 members of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Evidence-Based Recommendations Task Force. All recommendations reported here achieved at least 95% consensus. These guidelines will continue to be updated annually.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2006

A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: the ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240].

BACKGROUND: Although numerous therapies have been shown to be beneficial in the prevention of myocardial infarction and/or death in patients with coronary disease, these therapies are under-used and this gap contributes to sub-optimal patient outcomes. To increase the uptake of proven efficacious therapies in patients with coronary disease, we designed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention employing patient-specific reminders delivered at the point-of-care, with one-page treatment guidelines endorsed by local opinion leaders ("Local Opinion Leader Statement"). This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of these Local Opinion Leader Statements on the practices of primary care physicians caring for patients with coronary disease. In order to isolate the effects of the messenger (the local opinion leader) from the message, we will also test an identical quality improvement intervention that is not signed by a local opinion leader ("Unsigned Evidence Statement") in this trial. METHODS: Randomized trial testing three different interventions in patients with coronary disease: (1) usual care versus (2) Local Opinion Leader Statement versus (3) Unsigned Evidence Statement. Patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease after cardiac catheterization (but without acute coronary syndromes) will be randomly allocated to one of the three interventions by cluster randomization (at the level of their primary care physician), if they are not on optimal statin therapy at baseline. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients demonstrating improvement in their statin management in the first six months post-catheterization. Secondary outcomes include examinations of the use of ACE inhibitors, anti-platelet agents, beta-blockers, non-statin lipid lowering drugs, and provision of smoking cessation advice in the first six months post-catheterization in the three treatment arms. Although randomization will be clustered at the level of the primary care physician, the design effect is anticipated to be negligible and the unit of analysis will be the patient. DISCUSSION: If either the Local Opinion Leader Statement or the Unsigned Evidence Statement improves secondary prevention in patients with coronary disease, they can be easily modified and applied in other communities and for other target conditions.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Not all research presented at scientific meetings is subsequently published and, even when it is, there may be inconsistencies between these results and what is ultimately printed. Although late-breaking trials sessions are now integrated into several major scientific meetings and the results are often promptly and prominently communicated, no studies have examined the publication fate and degree of consistency between meeting abstracts or presentations and subsequent full-length article publications for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at these sessions. OBJECTIVE: To compare RCT abstracts presented in the late-breaking trials session vs other sessions at a major scientific meeting and subsequent full-length publications. DESIGN: RCTs were identified by hand searching abstract proceedings booklets and related Web sites for the American College of Cardiology scientific meetings (1999-2002). Subsequent full-length articles were identified via electronic databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication fate and degree of consistency between meeting abstract results and subsequent full-length publication results. RESULTS: The 86 late-breaking RCTs were significantly larger (median, 2737 patients vs 896; P<.001), were more likely to be preceded by a published design paper (27 [31%] vs 13 [13%]; P = .002), had higher quality scores when eventually published (mean Jadad score 2.69 vs 2.19; P = .01), and were less likely to report favorable results for the intervention than the 100 randomly chosen comparison RCTs presented in other sessions (50 [58%] vs 75 [75%]; P = .01; odds ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.90). RCTs presented at the late-breaking trials sessions were significantly more likely to be published (79 [92%] vs 69 [69%]; P<.001) and appeared earlier after presentation (median 11.5 months vs 22.0 months; P<.001) than RCTs presented in other sessions, an association that persisted even after adjusting for sample size, conclusion of study, and RCT design: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.61). Sixty (41%) of the 148 RCTs that were subsequently published exhibited discrepancies between the efficacy estimate reported in the meeting abstract vs the one reported in the full-length article for the primary outcome. The mean change in effect was 0.44 SDs and in 20 cases (14%), the point estimate was statistically significant in only 1 member of the pair. The discrepancy rate was the same for late-breaking RCTs as for RCTs presented in other American College of Cardiology sessions (P = .92). CONCLUSIONS: Late-breaking trials were larger, more likely to be preceded by a design paper, and less likely to report positive results than RCTs presented at other sessions, but discrepancies between the meeting abstract results and subsequent full-length publication results were common even for late-breaking trials.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2006

Proportion of patients followed in a specialized heart failure clinic needing an implantable cardioverter defibrillator as determined by applying different trial eligibility criteria.

Numerous trials have demonstrated survival benefits using implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention in selected patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, eligibility criteria differed across these trials. Without a risk stratification scheme that clearly identifies those who will benefit, there remains debate about which patients with heart failure (HF) should receive ICDs for primary prevention. To explore the implications of applying different eligibility criteria, this study evaluated all patients seen in a specialized HF clinic from August 2003 to January 2004. Of the 309 consecutive patients in the cohort, 46 were excluded because their HF complicated recent myocardial infarcts (n = 3); their LV ejection fractions were not measured (n = 9); or their HF was due to valvular disease, myocarditis, or peripartum cardiomyopathy (n = 34). The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II criteria were met by 85 patients (32%), and 134 patients (51%) met the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial criteria. Even allocation decisions based on randomized trial evidence can have vastly different resource implications depending on which trial is chosen. Thus, the development and validation of a risk stratification scheme to identify those patients most likely to benefit from ICDs for primary prophylaxis should be a research priority.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence.

During the past 5 years, 19 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective nonrandomized studies, and 11 meta-analyses that explored the role of acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy have been published. Herein, we summarize this literature and demonstrate that these 34 empirical studies have not yet conclusively resolved this research question. We use the evidence on acetylcysteine as a case study of how research evidence accumulates and consider whether an alternative approach to investigating the question of acetylcysteine's efficacy could have resulted in a more definitive conclusion. We consider the broader lessons learned from this acetylcysteine case study for the medical and research communities and propose specific steps that could be taken to improve the future coordination of research activity to ultimately yield more meaningful and definitive evidence on important clinical questions.

Acetylcysteine↗
PubMed2006

Thiazide diuretics for hypertension: prescribing practices and predictors of use in 194,761 elderly patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Although several small studies have reported underuse of thiazide diuretics for elderly hypertensive patients, those factors which influence initial choice of first-line antihypertensive treatment are unknown. OBJECTIVES: : The objective of this study was to explore prescribing practices for antihypertensives in the elderly and determine which factors are associated with thiazide diuretic use as first-line treatment METHODS: This population-based cohort study used linked administrative databases for all elderly patients (> or =66 years of age) first treated for hypertension between July 1, 1994, and March 31, 2002, in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Of the 194,761 patients in our cohort, 68,858 (35%) were prescribed a thiazide diuretic as their first anti-hypertensive agent. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with being prescribed a thiazide as first-line treatment included age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.67-1.78] for octogenarians compared with patients aged 66-69 years) and having multiple comorbidities (AOR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16-1.29] for Charlson scores of 2 and AOR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.37-1.61] for Charlson scores of > or =3). On the other hand, men (AOR, 0.64 [95% CI 0.63-0.65]) and hypertensives with diabetes (AOR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.21-0.23]) were substantially less likely to be prescribed thiazide diuretics as first-line treatment. Socioeconomic status was not associated with use of thiazide diuretics. CONCLUSIONS: One third of initial antihypertensive prescriptions for elderly patients were for thiazides in our publicly funded health care system with universal drug coverage. Socioeconomic status did not influence use of thiazides, but age, sex, and comorbidities did.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Treatment and blood pressure control in 47,964 people with diabetes and hypertension: a systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with diabetes also have hypertension, greatly increasing their risk for cardiovascular disease. It has been suggested that hypertension is poorly treated in those with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment and control of hypertension in people with diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, Web of Science, clinical evidence and government health and statistical Web sites. METHOD: Databases were systematically reviewed and hand searches of the bibliographies of relevant studies (1990 to 2004) were conducted. Two investigators selected studies and extracted the data independently. RESULTS: A total of 44 studies (77,649 subjects with diabetes, 47,964 [62%] of whom also had hypertension) were included. While 83% (range 32% to 100%) of patients with hypertension received drug therapy, only 12% (range 6% to 30%) had their blood pressure (BP) controlled to 130/85 mmHg or less. While BP control rates differed by definition of control (those studies with the least stringent definitions for BP control--160/90 mmHg or less--reported mean control rates of 37%), treatment and control rates did not differ appreciably between countries or health care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than one in eight people with diabetes and hypertension have adequately controlled BP, with remarkable uniformity across studies conducted in a variety of settings. There is an urgent need for multidisciplinary, community-based approaches to manage these high-risk patients.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2006

Antihypertensive medication prescribing in 27,822 elderly Canadians with diabetes over the past decade.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether prescribing practices for elderly individuals with diabetes and hypertension changed over the past decade. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We linked the Ontario Diabetes Database and four administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to identify 27,822 patients >65 years of age who had diabetes and were newly treated for hypertension between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2001. All patients were followed for 2 years after their initial antihypertensive medication prescription. RESULTS: The 27,822 patients in this study (mean age 72 years, 51% men) were treated with oral hypoglycemic agents alone (n = 17,128 patients, 62%), insulin alone (n = 2,346, 8%), both oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin (n = 2,205, 8%), or diet alone (n = 6,143, 22%). Management within the first 2 years of hypertension diagnosis consisted of antihypertensive monotherapy in 20,183 patients (73%), two antihypertensive drugs in 6,207 (22%), and three or more drugs in 1,432 (5%); the most frequently chosen antihypertensive drugs were ACE inhibitors (68%), thiazides (15%), and calcium channel blockers (9%). Between 1995 and 2001, physician prescribing practices changed: the population-adjusted rates of antihypertensive drug prescribing increased by 46% (95% CI 33-55%), the proportion of initial antihypertensive prescriptions for ACE inhibitors increased from 54 to 76% (P < 0.0001), and the use of multiple antihypertensive agents within the first 2 years of diagnosis increased from 21 to 32% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive prescribing patterns in elderly individuals with diabetes changed over the past decade in Ontario in directions consistent with the evolving evidence base.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

The impact of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program on antihypertensive prescribing trends.

Although previous studies have shown that hypertension management has improved in Canada during the past decade, this study was designed to determine whether these changes were temporally related to initiation of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program in 1999. Antihypertensive prescription rates in Ontario were compared using time series analyses before and after 1999 in 2 Ontario cohorts: all hypertensives prescribed therapy (using the Intercontinental Medical Statistics CompuScript Database) and all elderly hypertensives without diabetes prescribed therapy (using linked administrative databases including the Ontario Drug Benefit Database). Between January 1998 and December 2003, &280 million prescriptions for antihypertensive agents were filled in Ontario, and total antihypertensive prescriptions increased by 58% annually; time series analyses confirmed that the prescribing rates for total antihypertensives, thiazide diuretics, beta-blockers, and calcium channel blockers increased significantly after 1999, even after adjustment for the temporal trends in the pre-1999 data. In the 166,018 nondiabetic individuals over age 65 who were newly treated for hypertension in Ontario between July 1994 and March 2002, changes in prescription rates for total antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers, and calcium channel blockers occurred in directions that were consistent with guideline recommendations and were statistically significantly related to the initiation of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program. The substantial changes in prescription rates for guideline-recommended antihypertensive drug classes in elderly Ontarians without diabetes and the general Ontario population seen in the past decade are temporally related to the initiation of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program.

Aged↗