13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antihypertensive Medication Classes Used among Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Treatment in 2007–2010

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          After the 2003 publication of the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) guidelines, there was a 5–10% increase in patients initiating antihypertensive medication with a thiazide-type diuretic, but most patients still did not initiate treatment with this class. There are few contemporary published data on antihypertensive medication classes filled by patients initiating treatment.

          Methods and Findings

          We used the 5% random Medicare sample to study the initiation of antihypertensive medication between 2007 and 2010. Initiation was defined by the first antihypertensive medication fill preceded by 365 days with no antihypertensive medication fills. We restricted our analysis to beneficiaries ≥65 years who had two or more outpatient visits with a hypertension diagnosis and full Medicare fee-for-service coverage for the 365 days prior to initiation of antihypertensive medication. Between 2007 and 2010, 32,142 beneficiaries in the 5% Medicare sample initiated antihypertensive medication. Initiation with a thiazide-type diuretic decreased from 19.2% in 2007 to 17.9% in 2010. No other changes in medication classes initiated occurred over this period. Among those initiating antihypertensive medication in 2010, 31.3% filled angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is), 26.9% filled beta blockers, 17.2% filled calcium channel blockers, and 14.4% filled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Initiation with >1 antihypertensive medication class decreased from 25.6% in 2007 to 24.1% in 2010. Patients initiated >1 antihypertensive medication class most commonly with a thiazide-type diuretic and either an ACE-I or ARB.

          Conclusion

          These results suggest that JNC 7 had a limited long-term impact on the choice of antihypertensive medication class and provide baseline data prior to the publication of the 2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults from the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8).

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension.

          Hypertension is estimated to cause 4.5% of current global disease burden and is as prevalent in many developing countries, as in the developed world. Blood pressure-induced cardiovascular risk rises continuously across the whole blood pressure range. Countries vary widely in capacity for management of hypertension, but worldwide the majority of diagnosed hypertensives are inadequately controlled. This statement addresses the ascertainment of overall cardiovascular risk to establish thresholds for initiation and goals of treatment, appropriate treatment strategies for non-drug and drug therapies, and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Since publication of the WHO/ISH Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in 1999, more evidence has become available to support a systolic blood pressure threshold of 140 mmHg for even 'low-risk' patients. In high-risk patients there is evidence for lower thresholds. Lifestyle modification is recommended for all individuals. There is evidence that specific agents have benefits for patients with particular compelling indications, and that monotherapy is inadequate for the majority of patients. For patients without a compelling indication for a particular drug class, on the basis of comparative trial data, availability, and cost, a low dose of diuretic should be considered for initiation of therapy. In most places a thiazide diuretic is the cheapest option and thus most cost effective, but for compelling indications where other classes provide additional benefits, even if more expensive, they may be more cost effective. In high-risk patients who attain large benefits from treatment, expensive drugs may be cost effective, but in low-risk patients treatment may not be cost-effective unless the drugs are cheap.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

            (2002)
            Antihypertensive therapy is well established to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality, but the optimal first-step therapy is unknown. To determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events vs treatment with a diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial conducted from February 1994 through March 2002. A total of 33 357 participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor from 623 North American centers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n = 15 255); amlodipine, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 9048); or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d (n = 9054) for planned follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years. The primary outcome was combined fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intent-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CHD (primary outcome, coronary revascularization, or angina with hospitalization), and combined CVD (combined CHD, stroke, treated angina without hospitalization, heart failure [HF], and peripheral arterial disease). Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. The primary outcome occurred in 2956 participants, with no difference between treatments. Compared with chlorthalidone (6-year rate, 11.5%), the relative risks (RRs) were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.07) for amlodipine (6-year rate, 11.3%) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08) for lisinopril (6-year rate, 11.4%). Likewise, all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Five-year systolic blood pressures were significantly higher in the amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P =.03) and lisinopril (2 mm Hg, P<.001) groups compared with chlorthalidone, and 5-year diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower with amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P<.001). For amlodipine vs chlorthalidone, secondary outcomes were similar except for a higher 6-year rate of HF with amlodipine (10.2% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.25-1.52). For lisinopril vs chlorthalidone, lisinopril had higher 6-year rates of combined CVD (33.3% vs 30.9%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16); stroke (6.3% vs 5.6%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30); and HF (8.7% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31). Thiazide-type diuretics are superior in preventing 1 or more major forms of CVD and are less expensive. They should be preferred for first-step antihypertensive therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting--enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly.

              Treatment of hypertension with diuretics, beta-blockers, or both leads to improved outcomes. It has been postulated that agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system confer benefit beyond the reduction of blood pressure alone. We compared the outcomes in older subjects with hypertension who were treated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with the outcomes in those treated with diuretic agents. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label study with blinded assessment of end points in 6083 subjects with hypertension who were 65 to 84 years of age and received health care at 1594 family practices. Subjects were followed for a median of 4.1 years, and the total numbers of cardiovascular events in the two treatment groups were compared with the use of multivariate proportional-hazards models. At base line, the treatment groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, and blood pressure. By the end of the study, blood pressure had decreased to a similar extent in both groups (a decrease of 26/12 mm Hg). There were 695 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the ACE-inhibitor group (56.1 per 1000 patient-years) and 736 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the diuretic group (59.8 per 1000 patient-years; the hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event or death with ACE-inhibitor treatment was 0.89 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.00]; P=0.05). Among male subjects, the hazard ratio was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.97; P=0.02); among female subjects, the hazard ratio was 1.00 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.21; P=0.98); the P value for the interaction between sex and treatment-group assignment was 0.15. The rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events and myocardial infarctions decreased with ACE-inhibitor treatment, whereas a similar number of strokes occurred in each group (although there were more fatal strokes in the ACE-inhibitor group). Initiation of antihypertensive treatment involving ACE inhibitors in older subjects, particularly men, appears to lead to better outcomes than treatment with diuretic agents, despite similar reductions of blood pressure. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                25 August 2014
                : 9
                : 8
                : e105888
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America
                [2 ]Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America
                [3 ]Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America
                Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: STK PM. Analyzed the data: LH. Wrote the paper: STK. Supervised the project: STK PM. Provided medical expertise and input into the study design: SO DS. Contributed to the design of the analyses and provided interpretation of the results: LH. Provided Medicare data expertise and guidance of interpretation of the results: MLK PM. Critical review of the manuscript for content: STK PM DS SO LH MLK KMD.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-09825
                10.1371/journal.pone.0105888
                4143342
                25153199
                6213bc7e-cc77-4b25-891b-6c7bf802e043
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 April 2014
                : 25 July 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Funding
                STK was supported by a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) training grant (T32-HL007457-33). DS was supported by an NHLBI program grant (P01-HL047540). KMD was supported by a NHLBI Diversity Supplement (P01-HL047540-19S1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and life sciences
                Biochemistry
                Enzymology
                Enzyme inhibitors
                ACE inhibitors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Cardiology
                Cardiovascular Pharmacology
                Epidemiology
                Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology
                Pharmacoepidemiology
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Antihypertensive Drugs
                Diuretics
                Prescribing Habits

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article