+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy in diabetic hypertensive patients: impact of ischemic heart disease

      Read this article at

          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.


          Macrovascular complications are common in diabetic hypertensive patients. Appropriate antihypertensive therapy and tight blood pressure control are believed to prevent or delay such complication.


          To evaluate utilization patterns of antihypertensive agents and blood pressure (BP) control among diabetic hypertensive patients with and without ischemic heart disease (IHD).


          Retrospective cohort study of all diabetic hypertensive patients attending Al-watani medical center from August 2006 until August 2007. Proportions of use of different antihypertensive drug classes were compared for all patients receiving 1, 2, 3, or 4 or more drugs, and separately among patients with and without IHD. Blood pressure control (equal or lower 130/80 mmHg) was compared for patients receiving no therapy, monotherapy, or combination therapy and separately among patients with and without IHD.


          255 patients were included in the study; their mean age was 64.4 (SD=11.4) years. Sixty one (23.9%) of the included patients was on target BP. Over 60% of the total patients were receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/ angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), followed by diuretics (40.8%), calcium channel blockers (25.1%) and beta-blockers (12.5%). The majority (> 55%) of patients were either on mono or no drug therapy. More than 55% of patients with controlled BP were using ACE-I. More than half (50.8%) of the patients with controlled BP were on combination therapy while 42.3% of patients with uncontrolled BP were on combination therapy (p=0.24). More patient in the IHD achieved target BP than those in non-IHD group (p=0.019). Comparison between IHD and non-IHD groups indicated no significant difference in the utilization of any drug class with ACE-I being the most commonly utilized in both groups.


          Patterns of antihypertensive therapy were generally but not adequately consistent with international guidelines. Areas of improvement include increasing ACE-I drug combinations, decreasing the number of untreated patients, and increasing the proportion of patients with controlled BP in this population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

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

          Diabetes, other risk factors, and 12-yr cardiovascular mortality for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.

          To assess predictors of CVD mortality among men with and without diabetes and to assess the independent effect of diabetes on the risk of CVD death. Participants in this cohort study were screened from 1973 to 1975; vital status has been ascertained over an average of 12 yr of follow-up (range 11-13 yr). Participants were 347,978 men aged 35-57 yr, screened in 20 centers for MRFIT. The outcome measure was CVD mortality. Among 5163 men who reported taking medication for diabetes, 1092 deaths (603 CVD deaths) occurred in an average of 12 yr of follow-up. Among 342,815 men not taking medication for diabetes, 20,867 deaths were identified, 8965 ascribed to CVD. Absolute risk of CVD death was much higher for diabetic than nondiabetic men of every age stratum, ethnic background, and risk factor level--overall three times higher, with adjustment for age, race, income, serum cholesterol level, sBP, and reported number of cigarettes/day (P < 0.0001). For men both with and without diabetes, serum cholesterol level, sBP, and cigarette smoking were significant predictors of CVD mortality. For diabetic men with higher values for each risk factor and their combinations, absolute risk of CVD death increased more steeply than for nondiabetic men, so that absolute excess risk for diabetic men was progressively greater than for nondiabetic men with higher risk factor levels. These findings emphasize the importance of rigorous sustained intervention in people with diabetes to control blood pressure, lower serum cholesterol, and abolish cigarette smoking, and the importance of considering nutritional-hygienic approaches on a mass scale to prevent diabetes.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Diabetes and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association.

              • 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).

              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.

                Author and article information

                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharm Pract
                Pharmacy Practice
                Centro de Investigaciones y Publicaciones Farmaceuticas
                Jan-Mar 2009
                15 March 2009
                : 7
                : 1
                : 40-46
                College of Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacy Graduate Program. An-Najah National University , Nablus (Palestine)
                College of Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacy Graduate Program, and Poison Control and Drug Information Center (PCDIC). An-Najah National University , Nablus (Palestine)
                Poison Control and Drug Information Center (PCDIC). An-Najah National University . Nablus (Palestine)
                College of Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacy Graduate Program. An-Najah National University , Nablus (Palestine)
                Poison Control and Drug Information Center (PCDIC). An-Najah National University . Nablus (Palestine)
                College of Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacy Graduate Program. An-Najah National University , Nablus (Palestine)
                Copyright: © Pharmacy Practice

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Original Research


                Comment on this article