4.4 Article

Seventeen-Year Nationwide Trends in Antihypertensive Drug Use in Denmark

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 120, Issue 12, Pages 2193-2200

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.08.042

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent trends in use of antihypertensive drugs are unknown. From Danish nationwide prescription data, we obtained information on primary care use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers, diuretics, aldosterone receptor antagonists, and calcium channel blockers. During 1999 to 2015, the use of antihypertensive drugs per 1,000 inhabitants/day increased from 184 to 379 defined daily doses (DDD), corresponding to a rise in the prevalence proportion of users from approximate to 20% to approximate to 35%. From 1999 to 2015, a notable increase was observed for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (from 29 to 105 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants/day approximate to 260%) and angiotensin H receptor blockers (from 13 to 73 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants/day approximate to 520%). For diuretics the use remained stable, with a slight decrease (from 89 to 81 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants/day approximate to-10%). The use of aldosterone receptor antagonists increased until 2007 and remained unchanged at around 3.5 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants/day thereafter (average change approximate to 65%). The use of beta blockers doubled during the study period (from 17 to 34 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants/day approximate to 100%), entirely driven by increasing use of metoprolol. Similar trends.were observed for calcium channel blockers (from 34 to 82 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants/day approximate to 140%), where amlodipine drove the overall increase. In conclusion, antihypertensive drug use has increased remarkably during the past 2 decades. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available