4.2 Article

Trends in the use of antihypertensive drugs by outpatients with diabetes in Taiwan, 1997-2003

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 412-421

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1322

关键词

hypertension; diabetes; antihypertensive drugs; prescribing rates; prescribing patterns; trends

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To analyze trends in AHD-use by diabetic outpatients in Taiwan over a 7-year period (1997-2003) and to see whether the trends are consistent with clinical trial outcomes and published guidelines. Methods A cross-sectional survey was implemented using National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1997 and December 2003. Adult outpatients who had diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension and who had concurrent antidiabetic and antihypertensive drug claim were identified. The prescribing trends were described in terms of the prescribing rates and patterns of AHDs in each study year. Results Of the AHDs, CCBs were the most widely prescribed class throughout the study period but the prescribing rates declined considerably over the study period. A significant downward trend was also observed for beta-blockers and other classes. Drugs acting on the RAS were the only one class showing a significant increase in prescribing rates with time. The prescribing patterns for monotherapy regimen decreased over time while those for two-, three-, and four or more drug regimens increased over time. Monotherapies maintained with CCBs, beta-blockers, diuretics, and other classes steadily declined but those maintained with drugs acting on the RAS markedly increased. Conclusions The use of drugs acting on the RAS showed a marked increasing trend over the course of the study. Physicians' prescribing patterns for AHD are increasingly involving multi-drug regimens. These findings may imply that management of hypertension in patients with diabetes had a positive trend toward to new clinical trial outcomes and guideline's recommendation. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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