4.5 Article

Current usage of diuretics among hypertensive patients in Japan: The Japan home versus office blood pressure measurement evaluation (J-HOME) study

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 857-863

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1291/hypres.29.857

关键词

diuretics; prescribed doses; hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the Japan Home versus Office Blood Pressure Measurement Evaluation (J-HOME) study, we examined the current situation with respect to the prescription of diuretics, including the prevalence of diuretic treatment and the dosages used for patients with essential hypertension in primary care settings. Of the 3,400 hypertensive patients included in the study, 315 (9.3%) patients (mean age: 66.9 +/- 10.4 years; males: 43.5%) were prescribed diuretics. Compared with patients who were not using diuretics, those who were using diuretics were more obese and had more complications. The most commonly prescribed diuretic among the 331 prescriptions in the 315 diuretic users was trichlormethiazide (44%), followed by indapamide (15%) and spironolactone (14%). Among patients being treated with diuretics, monotherapy was used in only 5% of patients; in the majority of patients combination therapy including diuretics (95%) was used. Relatively low dosages of diuretics were generally used. There was a difference between the actual dosages prescribed and those recommended by the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines or the product information approved in Japan. Compared with previous estimates of the prevalence of diuretic use in hypertensives in Japan (4.0-5.4%), the rate in the J-HOME study (9.3%) was higher. This may be attributable at least in part to the results of the many published, large-scale intervention trials confirming the clinical significance of diuretics. Although a relatively high dosage is recommended in the diuretic product information and in the JSH guidelines, dosages of diuretics should be reconsidered in Japan.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据