Patterns of antihypertensive prescribing, discontinuation and switching among a Hong Kong Chinese population from over one million prescriptions

Hypertension is an alarming public health problem among Chinese. The present study evaluated the prescribing patterns, discontinuation and switching profiles of antihypertensive agents and their associated factors in one Hong Kong Chinese population. Data were retrieved from computerized records for patients prescribed anti-hypertensive agents in government primary care clinics of Hong Kong from January, 2004 to June, 2007. A total of 1,069,836 antihypertensive drug visits, representing 67,028 patients, were analyzed. The most commonly prescribed drugs were Calcium Channel Blockers (CCBs) (49%), b-Blockers (BBs) (46%) and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) (19%). Thiazide diuretic prescribing was low (13%) and on the decline (14% in 2004 to 12% in 2007). Prescribing of ACEIs was rising (16% in 2004 to 23% in 2007). Patients’ age, gender, and socio-economic status were independent predictors of class of anti-hypertensive prescribed but explained less than 3.5% of the variation observed. Drug discontinuation was highest for BBs (21%) and lowest for CCBs (12%). The high rates of discontinuation in BBs remained apparent after controlling for confounding variables. Switching was less common than discontinuation and was most likely with thiazide diuretics. To summarize, prescribing of CCBs and BBs were high and that of thiazide diuretics particularly low in this Chinese population when compared with international trends. CCBs may be a particularly favorable antihypertensive treatment in Chinese, given the high discontinuation rates of BBs and international guidelines advising against the use of BBs as first-line therapy. The low use of thiazide diuretics warrants further clinical and cost effectiveness studies among Chinese

Improving prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs: a method for identifying and addressing barriers to change

BACKGROUND: We describe a simple approach we used to identify barriers and tailor an intervention to improve pharmacological management of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. We also report the results of a post hoc exercise and survey we carried out to evaluate our approach for identifying barriers and tailoring interventions. METHODS: We used structured reflection, searched for other relevant trials, surveyed general practitioners and talked with physicians during pilot testing of the intervention. The post hoc exercise was carried out as focus groups of international researchers in the field of quality improvement in health care. The post hoc survey was done by telephone interviews with physicians allocated to the experimental group of a randomised trial of our multifaceted intervention. RESULTS: A wide range of barriers was identified and several interventions were suggested through structured reflection. The survey led to some adjustments. Studying other trials and pilot testing did not lead to changes in the design of the intervention. Neither the post hoc focus groups nor the post hoc survey revealed important barriers or interventions that we had not considered or included in our tailored intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A simple approach to identifying barriers to change appears to have been adequate and efficient. However, we do not know for certain what we would have gained by using more comprehensive methods and we do not know whether the resulting intervention would have been more effective if we had used other methods. The effectiveness of our multifaceted intervention is under evaluation in a randomised controlled trial

International variation in prescribing antihypertensive drugs: Its extent and possible explanations

BACKGROUND: Inexpensive antihypertensive drugs are at least as effective and safe as more expensive drugs. Overuse of newer, more expensive antihypertensive drugs is a poor use of resources. The potential savings are substantial, but vary across countries, in large part due to differences in prescribing patterns. We wanted to describe prescribing patterns of antihypertensive drugs in ten countries and explore possible reasons for inter-country variation. METHODS: National prescribing profiles were determined based on information on sales and indications for prescribing. We sent a questionnaire to academics and drug regulatory agencies in Canada, France, Germany, UK, US and the Nordic countries, asking about explanations for differences in prescribing patterns in their country compared with the other countries. We also conducted telephone interviews with medical directors of drug companies in the UK and Norway, the countries with the largest differences in prescribing patterns. RESULTS: There is considerable variation in prescribing patterns. In the UK thiazides account for 25% of consumption, while the corresponding figure for Norway is 6%. In Norway alpha-blocking agents account for 8% of consumption, which is more than twice the percentage found in any of the other countries. Suggested factors to explain inter-country variation included reimbursement policies, traditions, opinion leaders with conflicts of interests, domestic pharmaceutical production, and clinical practice guidelines. The medical directors also suggested hypotheses that: Norwegian physicians are early adopters of new interventions while the British are more conservative; there are many clinical trials conducted in Norway involving many general practitioners; there is higher cost-awareness among physicians in the UK, in part due to fund holding; and there are publicly funded pharmaceutical advisors in the UK. CONCLUSION: Two compelling explanations the variation in prescribing that warrant further investigation are the promotion of less-expensive drugs by pharmaceutical advisors in UK and the promotion of more expensive drugs through "seeding trials" in Norway

Lipid-lowering drugs in ischaemic heart disease : a quasi-experimental uncontrolled before-and-after study of the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines

Background: Cardiovascular diseases(CVD), specifically ischaemic heart disease(IHD), are the main causes of death in industrialized countries. Statins are not usually prescribed in the most appropriate way. To ensure the correct prescription of these drugs, it is necessary to develop, disseminate and implement clinical practice guidelines(CPGs), and subsequently evaluate them. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of consensual Lipid-lowering drugs (LLD) prescription guidelines in hospital and primary care settings, to improve the control of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in patients with IHD in the Terres de l'Ebre region covered by the Catalonian Health Institute. Secondary bjectives are to assess the improvement of the prescription profile of these LLDs, to assess cardiovascular morbimortality and the professional profile and participant centre characteristics that govern the control of LDL-C. Methods/Design Design: Quasi-experimental uncontrolled before and after study. The intervention consists of the delivery of training strategies for guideline implementation (classroom clinical sessions and on-line courses) aimed at primary care and hospital physicians. The improvement in the control of LDL-C levels in the 3,402 patients with IHD in our territory is then assessed. Scope: Primary care physicians from 11 basic health areas(BHAs) and two hospital services (internal medicine and cardiology). Sample: 3,402 patients registered with IHD in the database of the Catalan Institute of Health(E-cap) before December 2008 and patients newly diagnosed during 2009-2010. Variables: Percentage of patients achieving good control of LDL-C, measured in milligrams per decilitre. The aim of the intervention is to achieve levels of LDL-C < 100 mg/dl in patients with IHD. Secondary variables measure type and time of diagnosis of IHD, type and dose of prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs, level of physician participation in training activities and their professional profile. Discussion: The development of prescription guidelines previously agreed by various medical specialists involved in treating IHD patients have usually improved drug prescription. The guideline presented in this study aims to improve the control of LDL-C by training physicians through presential and on-line courses on the dissemination of this guideline, and by providing feedback on their personal results a year after this training intervention

Experience developing national evidence-based clinical guidelines for childhood pneumonia in a low-income setting - making the GRADE?

BACKGROUND: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines has gained wide acceptance in high-income countries and reputable international organizations. Whereas this approach may be a desirable standard, challenges remain in low-income settings with limited capacity and resources for evidence synthesis and guideline development. We present our experience using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the recent revision of the Kenyan pediatric clinical guidelines focusing on antibiotic treatment of pneumonia. METHODS: A team of health professionals, many with minimal prior experience conducting systematic reviews, carried out evidence synthesis for structured clinical questions. Summaries were compiled and distributed to a panel of clinicians, academicians and policy-makers to generate recommendations based on best available research evidence and locally-relevant contextual factors. RESULTS: We reviewed six eligible articles on non-severe and 13 on severe/very severe pneumonia. Moderate quality evidence suggesting similar clinical outcomes comparing amoxicillin and cotrimoxazole for non-severe pneumonia received a strong recommendation against adopting amoxicillin. The panel voted strongly against amoxicillin for severe pneumonia over benzyl penicillin despite moderate quality evidence suggesting clinical equivalence between the two and additional factors favoring amoxicillin. Very low quality evidence suggesting ceftriaxone was as effective as the standard benzyl penicillin plus gentamicin for very severe pneumonia received a strong recommendation supporting the standard treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although this exercise may have fallen short of the rigorous requirements recommended by the developers of GRADE, it was arguably an improvement on previous attempts at guideline development in low-income countries and offers valuable lessons for future similar exercises where resources and locally-generated evidence are scarce

Antihypertensive medication prescription patterns and time trends for newly-diagnosed uncomplicated hypertension patients in Taiwan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knowledge of existing prescription patterns in the treatment of newly-diagnosed hypertension can provide useful information for improving clinical practice in this field. The aims of this study are to determine the prescription patterns and time trends for antihypertensive medication in newly-diagnosed cases of uncomplicated hypertension in Taiwan and to compare these with current clinical guidelines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 6,536 newly-diagnosed patients with uncomplicated hypertension, aged ≥30 years, were identified from the representative 200,000-person sample in the computerized reimbursement database of the National Health Insurance in Taiwan. These patients were followed from 1998 to 2004 with all diagnoses, prescription data and medication charges being retrieved for subsequent analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Prescription patterns varied by age, gender and clinical facilities, with mono-therapies being found to be dominant in the first year, albeit declining over time. Calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers were the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive drugs, either alone or in combinations. Although least expensive, the prescription rates of diuretics were low, at 8.3% for mono-therapies and 19.9% overall. The prescription rate for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was elevated considerably over time. After controlling for other related factors by multiple logistic regression analysis, ARBs were found to be prescribed mainly by medical centers or regional hospitals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings indicate the existence of a gap between current clinical practice and the desired goal of cost-effectiveness in antihypertensive treatment in Taiwan, which should be corrected.</p

The Sandwell Project: A controlled evaluation of a programme of targeted screening for prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A pilot cardiovascular disease prevention project was implemented in the inner-city West Midlands. It was evaluated by comparing its effectiveness to a control group where full implementation was delayed by a year.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cardiovascular risk factor data were extracted on all untreated patients 35 to 74 years old from electronic medical databases in six general practices. A best estimate of ten-year CVD risk cardiovascular risk was calculated on all patients using the extracted risk factor data. Default risk-factor values were used for all missing risk factor data. High risk patients were thus identified. In four practices a project nurse systematically invited, assessed and referred high risk patients for treatment. Two control practices were provided with a list of their high risk patients. The outcomes were the proportions of untreated high-risk patients who were assessed, identified as eligible for treatment and treated under two strategies for identifying and treating such patients in primary care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of all high-risk patients suitable for inclusion in the project, 40.6% (95% CI: 36.7 to 45.7%) of patients in intervention practices were started on treatment were started on at least one treatment, compared to 12.7% (95% CI: 9.8% to 16.1%) in control practices.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A strategy using electronic primary care records to identify high risk patients for CVD prevention works best with a process for acting on information, ensuring patients are invited, assessed and treated.</p

Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Best formats for summarising and presenting evidence for use in clinical guideline development remain less well defined. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different evidence summary formats to address this gap. METHODS: Healthcare professionals attending a one-week Kenyan, national guideline development workshop were randomly allocated to receive evidence packaged in three different formats: systematic reviews (SRs) alone, systematic reviews with summary-of-findings tables, and 'graded-entry' formats (a 'front-end' summary and a contextually framed narrative report plus the SR). The influence of format on the proportion of correct responses to key clinical questions, the primary outcome, was assessed using a written test. The secondary outcome was a composite endpoint, measured on a 5-point scale, of the clarity of presentation and ease of locating the quality of evidence for critical neonatal outcomes. Interviews conducted within two months following completion of trial data collection explored panel members' views on the evidence summary formats and experiences with appraisal and use of research information. RESULTS: 65 (93%) of 70 participants completed questions on the prespecified outcome measures. There were no differences between groups in the odds of correct responses to key clinical questions. 'Graded-entry' formats were associated with a higher mean composite score for clarity and accessibility of information about the quality of evidence for critical neonatal outcomes compared to systematic reviews alone (adjusted mean difference 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.99). There was no difference in the mean composite score between SR with SoF tables and SR alone. Findings from interviews with 16 panelists indicated that short narrative evidence reports were preferred for the improved clarity of information presentation and ease of use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that 'graded-entry' evidence summary formats may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence in clinical guideline development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN05154264

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 10(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on integrating values and consumers in guideline development. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We reviewed the titles of all citations and retrieved abstracts and full text articles if the citations appeared relevant to the topic. We checked the reference lists of articles relevant to the questions and used snowballing as a technique to obtain additional information. We did not conduct a full systematic review ourselves. Our conclusions based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We did not find a systematic review of methods for integrating values in guidelines, but we found several systematic reviews that dealt with related topics. Whose values should WHO use when making recommendations? • Values, the relative importance or worth of a state or consequences of a decision (outcomes relating to benefits, harms, burden and costs), play a role in every recommendation. Ethical considerations, concepts that determine what is right, also play a role. • The values used in making recommendations should reflect those of the people affected. Judgements should be explicit and should be informed by input from those affected (including citizens, patients, clinicians and policy makers). • When differences in values may lead to different decisions or there is uncertainty about values, this should also be explicit. If differences in values are likely to affect a decision, such that people in different setting would likely make different choices about interventions or actions based on differences in their values, global recommendations should be explicit in terms of which values were applied and allow for adaptation after incorporating local values. How should WHO ensure that appropriate values are integrated in recommendations? • All WHO guideline groups should uniformly apply explicit, transparent and clearly described methods for integrating values. • WHO should consider involving relevant stakeholders if this is feasible and efficient. • WHO should develop a checklist for guidelines panels to help them to ensure that ethical considerations relevant to recommendations are addressed explicitly and transparently. How should users and consumers be involved in generating recommendations? • Including consumers in groups that are making global recommendations presents major challenges with respect to the impossibility of including a representative spectrum of consumers from a variety of cultures and settings. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to including consumers in groups who are able to challenge assumptions that are made about the values used for making recommendations, rather than represent the values of consumers around the world. • WHO should establish a network to facilitate involvement of users. • Draft recommendations should be reviewed by consumers, who should be asked explicitly to consider the values that were used. How should values be presented in recommendations? • Recommendations should include a description of how decisions were made about the relative importance of the consequences (benefits, harms and costs) of a decision. • Values that influence recommendations should be reported along with the research evidence underlying recommendations. • When differences in values would lead to different decisions or there is important uncertainty about values that are critical to a decision, this should be flagged and reflected in the strength of the recommendation. • Adaptable guideline templates that allow for integration of different values should be developed and used when differences in values are likely to be critical to a decision