Risk factor profile and achievement of treatment goals among hypertensive patients from the Israeli Blood Pressure Control (IBPC) program--initial cost utility analysis

Aims: Blood pressure (BP) reduction is crucial in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The IBPC (Israeli Blood Pressure Control) program was initiated in order to enhance the control of modifiable risk factors among high-risk hypertensive patients under follow-up by general practitioners in Israel. The cost effectiveness of an intervention program is an important factor in the decision-making process of its implementation and therefore was evaluated here. The objective of this evaluation is to estimate the costs, monetary savings and benefits in terms of QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) that would be expected if the program were to be expanded to 100 clinics nationwide, enabling around 14 800 persons to be treated. Methods: Hypertensive patients were screened in 30 general practice clinics, supervised by specialists in family medicine, each seeing 1000-5000 patients; 50-250 hypertensive patients were diagnosed at each participating clinic. BP levels, body mass index (BMI), lipid and glucose levels, as well as target organ damage and medications were recorded for all patients. Results: A total of 4948 (2079, 42% males) were registered. Mean age was 64.8 ± 12 years. After 1 year of follow-up versus baseline, the various parameters were as follows: BP control was achieved in 46.4% vs 29% of all hypertensive patients. LDL control (JNC VI criteria) was achieved in 41.7% vs 31.2% of all patients. Fasting plasma glucose control (glucose 200 mg/dl. Obesity (BMI >30 kg/m[Formula: See Text]) was noted in 36.7% vs 43.8% at baseline. The cost utility analysis of the reduction in risk factors was calculated based on the international dicta applied to the reduction in risk factors as a result of treatment. For 100 clinics nationwide and 14 800 persons to be treated the net saving to health services would be $977 993 and the increase in QALYs would be 602 years. Conclusions: Better risk factor control in hypertensive patients by general practitioners could reduce morbidity and mortality as well as be cost effective.     

The Toxicology Investigators Consortium Case Registry—the 2014 Experience

The Toxicology Investigators Consortium (ToxIC) Case Registry was established in 2010 by the American College of Medical Toxicology. The Registry includes all medical toxicology consultations performed at participating sites. The Registry was queried for all cases entered between January 1 and December 31, 2014. Specific data reviewed for analysis included demographics (age, gender, ethnicity), source of consultation, reasons for consultation, agents involved in toxicological exposures, signs, symptoms, clinical findings, fatalities, and treatment. In 2014, 9172 cases were entered in the Registry across 47 active member sites. Females accounted for 51.1 % of cases. The majority (65.1 %) of cases were adults between the ages of 19 and 65. Caucasians made up the largest identified ethnic group (48.9 %). Most Registry cases originated from the inpatient setting (93.5 %), with a large majority of these consultations coming from the emergency department or inpatient admission services. Intentional and unintentional pharmaceutical exposures continued to be the most frequent reasons for consultation, accounting for 61.7 % of cases. Among cases of intentional pharmaceutical exposure, 62.4 % were associated with a self-harm attempt. Non-pharmaceutical exposures accounted for 14.1 % of Registry cases. Similar to the past years, non-opioid analgesics, sedative-hypnotics, and opioids were the most commonly encountered agents. Clinical signs or symptoms were noted in 81.9 % of cases. There were 89 recorded fatalities (0.97 %). Medical treatment (e.g., antidotes, antivenom, chelators, supportive care) was rendered in 62.3 % of cases. Patient demographics and exposure characteristics in 2014 Registry cases remain similar to prior years. The majority of consultations arose in the acute care setting (emergency department or inpatient) and involved exposures to pharmaceutical products. Among exposures, non-opioid analgesics, sedative/hypnotics, and opioids were the most frequently encountered. A majority of cases required some form of treatment, but fatalities were rare.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13181-015-0507-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Too little aspirin for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events: Results from the MITRA study

Background

A meta-analysis of randomized trials has shown a significant reduction of mortality rate in patients receiving aspirin for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, a significant number of patients do not receive aspirin after AMI. Little is known about why aspirin is withheld or the long-term outcome of these patients today.

Methods

The Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) registry is a multicenter registry of patients with AMI in Germany.

Results

Of 4902 patients, 509 (10%) did not receive aspirin at the time of discharge from the hospital. The mean follow-up period for these patients was 17 months. Relative contraindications to aspirin were significantly associated with the withholding of aspirin (in-hospital bleeding: odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% CI, 1.86-6.80; history of peptic ulcer: OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.62-3.83). Absolute contraindications to aspirin were rare (2.2%). Other medications of proven benefit were also given less often in these patients (β-blockers: 49.0% vs 61.9%, P <.001; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: 65.6% vs 70.2%, P = .06; statins: 12.2% vs 15.1%, P = .10). Patients who were not given aspirin were at high risk for vascular events. They were more likely to have a history of prior AMI (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), were in critical clinical condition at admission more often (cardiogenic shock: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.09-3.56; overt heart failure: OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.05-2.3), and received acute revascularization less often (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67). The 1-year mortality was 2-times higher in patients who did not receive aspirin than in patients who did receive aspirin (16.5% vs 8.3%, P <.001). A significant association of withheld aspirin at discharge with a higher long-term mortality rate was confirmed with multivariate analysis (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.15-2.29).

Conclusions

Ten percent of patients who sustained an AMI did not receive aspirin at the time of hospital discharge. Most of these patients were at high risk for cardiovascular events. Withheld aspirin was significantly associated with higher mortality rate during follow up.     

Feasibility and implications of an early discharge strategy after percutaneous intervention with abciximab in acute myocardial infarction (the CADILLAC Trial)

Early complications may hamper efforts to hasten discharge after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, by reducing early recurrent ischemia, may aid in these efforts. We examined whether adjunctive abciximab could accelerate discharge and reduce costs within a trial of primary PCI after acute MI. The CADILLAC trial randomized 2,082 patients with MI to 1 of 4 reperfusion strategies in a 2 x 2 factorial design: angioplasty, angioplasty with abciximab, stent implantation, or stenting with abciximab. Patients randomized to abciximab had postprocedural heparin withheld, and discharge scheduled for days 1.5 to 2 (low-risk patients) or days 2 to 3 (high-risk patients) after MI if they were stable. Other patients were discharged at the physician's discretion. Abciximab treatment was associated with significant reductions in the primary end points of in-hospital death, reinfarction, ischemic target vessel revascularization (TVR), or disabling stroke (5.6% vs 2.7%, p = 0.003)--largely reflecting reduced ischemic TVR (3.8% vs 1.4%, p = 0.002)--and in early subacute thrombosis (1.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.01). Hospitalization was significantly shorter in abciximab-treated patients (median 3.1 vs 3.5 days, p <0.001), but total in-hospital costs did not differ significantly (13,413 +/- 5,309 US dollars vs 13,000 +/- 6,006 US dollars, p = 0.13). Rates of the composite end point did not differ significantly during the week after discharge (0.8% vs 0.2%, p = 0.10), nor did component event rates. Abciximab during primary PCI is associated with fewer early adverse outcomes, likely contributing to offset its cost. Hospitalizations after primary PCI are so short, however, that efforts to accelerate discharge with abciximab appear unfeasible, and overall costs remain unchanged.     

Clinical profile of eprosartan

Angiotensin II (AII) receptor blockers offer an alternative means of blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) to angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Being highly selective for the AII receptor subtype AT₁, AII receptor blockers may avoid side-effects associated with ACE inhibitor treatment, such as cough. Eprosartan is a non-biphenyl, non-tetrazole competitive blocker that is chemically distinct from other AII receptor blockers, which may account for differences in its pharmacological properties. It induces dual blockade of AT₁ receptors both presynaptically and postsynaptically, reducing sympathetic nerve activity to a significantly greater degree than other AT₁ receptor blockers.At the recommended dose of 600 mg once daily, eprosartan effectively lowers blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients to a similar degree as seen with other AII receptor blockers and ACE inhibitors. However, a greater proportion of patients achieved adequate BP control compared with enalapril. When eprosartan is given in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), it provides a significantly greater BP reduction compared with eprosartan alone.Eprosartan has a side-effect profile that is similar to placebo and to other AII receptor blockers, but is better than that of enalapril because it lacks the propensity to cause dry cough. Eprosartan is not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system, and so has no interaction with drugs that affect this system. Eprosartan completely reverses renal vasoconstriction induced by AII and may, therefore, have further applications in situations where stimulation of the RAAS is a problem. In summary, eprosartan, alone or in combination with HCTZ, provides an effective and well-tolerated approach to lowering BP in patients with all grades of hypertension. Further development of eprosartan may offer therapeutic opportunities that go far beyond the current recommendations.