EFFICACY OF RAMIPRIL VERSUS ENALAPRIL IN PATIENTS WITH MILD TO MODERATE ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION

SUMMARY This double-blind, randomised, cross-over study investigated the antihypertensive efficacy of ramipril and enalapril was completed by 30 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After a four-week placebo run-in phase, the patients received either 2.5mg ramipril or 10mg enalapril once daily for four weeks. The dosages were increased to 5mg ramipril and 20mg enalapril for a further four weeks. After a placebo washout phase of four weeks, the patients were crossed over to the alternative treatment. The decrease in average 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure from week 0 to week 8 was 1.6mmHg greater with ramipril than enalapril (90% confidence interval 0.6-2.7mmHg). The corresponding reduction in for systolic blood pressure was also greater with ramipril than enalapril by 2.4mmHg (90% confidence interval: 0.5-4.2mmHg). For the difference in the drop of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure between ramipril and enalapril the lower level of the 90% confidence interval (CI) is above the clinically relevant difference of -3mmHg. This is an indication that ramipril (2.5 and 5mg dose) is at least as effective as enalapril (10 and 20mg dose) in decreasing blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The duration of adequate antihypertensive effect was relatively long for both ramipril and enalapril; however, ramipril tended to have a more prolonged antihypertensive effect. Ramipril had a higher diastolic and systolic trough/peak ratio than enalapril, resulting in a more uniform antihypertensive effect over the 24-hour treatment period. Both ramipril and enalapril were well tolerated and the two treatment groups had similar safety profiles.     

Rural and remote health research: Does the investment match the need?

Objective

To determine the percentage of research projects funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council in the period 2000–2014 that aimed specifically to deliver health benefits to Australians living in rural and remote areas and to estimate the proportion of total funding this represented in 2005–2014.

Design

This is a retrospective analysis of publicly available datasets.

Setting

National Health and Medical Research Council Rural and Remote Health Research 2000–2014.

Outcome measures

‘Australian Rural Health Research’ was defined as: research that focussed on rural or remote Australia; that related to the National Health and Medical Research Council's research categories other than Basic Science; and aimed specifically to improve the health of Australians living in rural and remote areas. Grants meeting the inclusion criteria were grouped according to the National Health and Medical Research Council's categories and potential benefit. Funding totals were aggregated and compared to the total funding and Indigenous funding for the period 2005–2014.

Results

Of the 16 651 National Health and Medical Research Council‐funded projects, 185 (1.1%) that commenced funding during the period 2000–2014 were defined as ‘Australian Rural Health Research’. The funding for Australian Rural Health Research increased from 1.0% of the total in 2005 to 2.4% in 2014. A summary of the funding according to the National Health and Medical Research Council's research categories and potential benefit is presented.

Conclusion

Addressing the health inequality experienced by rural and remote Australians is a stated aim of the Australian Government. While National Health and Medical Research Council funding for rural health research has increased over the past decade, at 2.4% by value, it appears very low given the extent of the health status and health service deficits faced by the 30% who live in rural Australia.     

Racial Variation in Serum Uric Acid Concentration in Pregnancy: a Comparison between European, New Zealand Maori and Polynesian Women

A prospective study was undertaken to measure serum uric acid levels in normal pregnant women of different races, to ascertain if there was any significant interracial variation. A total of 48 women were studied of which 13 were European, 11 New Zealand Maori, 22 Pacific Islanders and 2 Indian. In the second trimester, European, Maori and Cook Island women had similar uric acid levels and other Polynesian groups showed significantly higher levels. In the third trimester, both Maori and Cook Island women showed a marked rise so that their levels came to equal those of other Polynesian groups, all 3 having significantly higher levels than European women. The importance of these observations relates to the use of uric acid levels in the management of patients with gestational proteinuric hypertension. It is possible that in these cases unusually high results may alarm the clinician into hasty intervention.     

Computerized test versus personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies: A retrospective cohort study

The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity, economic efficiency, and faculty staff satisfaction of a computerized test versus a personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies. A mixed method study was designed, including cross‐sectional and retrospective cohorts, interviews, and cost analysis. One hundred and thirty‐four students in the Master of Nursing program participated. The success of students in required core courses was similar in both admission method groups. The personal interview method was found to be a significant predictor of success, with cognitive variables the only significant contributors to the model. Higher satisfaction levels were reported with the computerized test compared with the personal interview method. The cost of the personal interview method, in annual hourly work, was 2.28 times higher than the computerized test. These findings may promote discussion regarding the cost benefit of the personal interview as an admission method for advanced academic studies in healthcare professions.