Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19242661›Full record

ArticleMedizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983)2009

[Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy of patients in primary care with either a statutory or private health insurance].

Gunter Laux, Joachim Szecsenyi, Antje Miksch, Barbara Grün, Andreas Gutscher, Barbara Grün, Thomas Rosemann, Thomas Kühlein

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Cost of poor adherence to anti-hypertensive therapy in five European countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2015
    Article
  3. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gunter LauxAbteilung Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. gunter.laux@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Joachim Szecsenyi
Antje Miksch
Barbara Grün
Andreas Gutscher
Barbara Grün
Thomas Rosemann
Thomas Kühlein
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIn Germany, hypertension has a prevalence of about 20%. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are closely associated with hypertension. Therefore, antihypertensive medical treatment is of crucial importance. Currently, five groups of drugs for the medical treatment of hypertension are available: diuretics, beta-receptor blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. Besides medical considerations for the treatment of hypertension costs of treatment and other economic aspects become more and more important. Within this article, the antihypertensive treatment of insurants of the statutory health insurance and the private health insurance is compared with regard to the medical treatment and associated costs.

methodsThe analyzed data derive from the general practice morbidity research network CONTENT (CONTinuous morbidity registration Epidemiologic NeTwork). The implementation of this network is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) for a continuous registration of health-care utilization, morbidity, course of disease, and outcome parameters within primary care.

resultsAltogether 4,842 patients from the participating general practitioners were regularly treated with antihypertensive drugs in 2007 and corresponding episodes were documented within electronic medical records. The proportion of insurants of the private health insurance was 7.6%. The costs of the antihypertensive medical treatment within the total sample in 2007 constituted 1.03 million Euros overall and per patient on average 212.82 Euros. Although the regarded sample of private health insurants was less morbid and the sum of defined daily doses (DDDs) within the observation period was notably lower (582.6 vs. 703.1; p < 0.0001), the annual therapy costs of the private health insurants compared to the statutory health insurants were 35.2% higher (280.29 Euros vs. 207.29 Euros; p < 0.0001). Hence, costs per DDD for antihypertensive medical treatment for private health insurants were 63.2% higher than for statutory health insurants. This refers to the great proportion of angiotensin II receptor blockers as well as the low proportion of generic drugs prescribed for private health insurants.

conclusionAntihypertensive treatment with original drugs and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers is an expensive option. Based on the actual state of knowledge it must be questioned critically whether this constitutes a superior treatment option concerning the potential for lowering high blood pressure levels and organ protection.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AntagonistsAgedAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCalcium Channel BlockersComorbidityCost-Benefit AnalysisDiureticsDrug CostsFemaleGermanyHumansHypertensionInsurance, HealthAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsCalcium Channel BlockersDiuretics

Identifiers

PMID19242661
OpenAlexW105345250

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.