Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15042351›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2004

Patterns of antihypertensive drug utilization in primary care.

D Pittrow, W Kirch, P Bramlage, H Lehnert, M Höfler, T Unger, A M Sharma, H-U Wittchen

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

D PittrowInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Technical University, Fiedlerstrasse 27, 01307 Dresden, Germany. david.pittrow@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
W Kirch
P Bramlage
H Lehnert
M Höfler
T Unger
A M Sharma
H-U Wittchen
TU Dresden · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHamilton General Hospital · CAMax Planck Society · DEUniversity Hospital Magdeburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the treatment of hypertension, physicians' attitudes and practice patterns are receiving increased attention as contributors to poor blood pressure (BP) control. Thus, current use of antihypertensive drugs in primary care was analyzed and the association with selected physician and patient characteristics was assessed.

methodsThe Hypertension and Diabetes Risk Screening and Awareness (HYDRA) study is a cross-sectional point prevalence study of 45,125 primary care attendees recruited from a representative nationwide sample of 1912 primary care practices in Germany. Prescription frequencies of the various antihypertensive drugs in the individual patients were recorded by the physicians using standardized questionnaires. We assessed the association of patient variables [age, gender; co-morbidities such as diabetes, nephropathy or coronary heart disease (CHD)] and physician variables (general practitioner vs internist, guideline adherence, etc.) with drug treatment intensity and prescription patterns.

resultsOf all 43,549 patients for whom a physician diagnosis on hypertension or diabetes was available, 17,485 (40.1%) had hypertension. Of these hypertensive patients, 1647 (9.4%) received no treatment at all, 1191 (6.8%) received non-pharmacological measures only, and 14,647 (83.8%) were given one or more antihypertensive drugs. Drug treatment rates were lower in young patients (16-40 years: 57.4%). BP control was poor: 70.6% of all patients were not normalized, i.e., had BP >/=140/90 mmHg. Antihypertensive treatment was generally intensified with increasing age, or if complications or comorbidities were present. The use of the different drug classes was rather uniform across the various patient subgroups (e.g., by age and gender). Individualized treatment with regard to co-morbidities as recommended in guidelines was not the rule. Adherence to guidelines as self-reported by physicians as well as other physician characteristics (region, training etc.) did not result in more differentiated prescription pattern.

conclusionsDespite the broad armamentarium of drug treatment options, physicians in primary care did not treat hypertension aggressively enough. Treatment was only intensified at a late stage, after complications had occurred. Treatment should be more differentiated in terms of coexisting morbidities such as diabetes, nephropathy, or CHD.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'AdolescentAdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug UtilizationFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID15042351
OpenAlexW1982275656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.