| 1. |
- Hasvold, L. P., et al.
(författare)
-
Diabetes and CVD risk during angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker treatment in hypertension : a study of 15 990 patients
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of Human Hypertension. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0950-9240 .- 1476-5527. ; 28:11, s. 663-669
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11 725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36 482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.96, P = 0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Henriksson, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Health-care costs of losartan and candesartan in the primary treatment of hypertension
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Human Hypertension. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0950-9240 .- 1476-5527. ; 25:2, s. 130-136
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A recent study of two widely used angiotensin receptor blockers reported a reduced risk of cardiovascular events (-14.4%) when using candesartan compared with losartan in the primary treatment of hypertension. In addition to clinical benefits, costs associated with treatment strategies must be considered when allocating scarce health-care resources. The aim of this study was to assess resource use and costs of losartan and candesartan in hypertensive patients. Resource use (drugs, outpatient contacts, hospitalizations and laboratory tests) associated with losartan and candesartan treatment was estimated in 14 100 patients in a real-life clinical setting. We electronically extracted patient data from primary care records and mandatory Swedish national registers for death and hospitalization. Patients treated with losartan had more outpatient contacts (+15.6%), laboratory tests (+13.8%) and hospitalizations (+13.8%) compared with the candesartan group. During a maximum observation time of 9 years, the mean total costs per patient were 10 369 Swedish kronor (95% confidence interval: 3109-17 629) higher in the losartan group. In conclusion, prescribing candesartan for the primary treatment of hypertension results in lower long-term health-care costs compared with losartan.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Kjeldsen, S. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Journal of Human Hypertension. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0950-9240 .- 1476-5527. ; 24:4, s. 263-273
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties no comparative studies with cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been performed within this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are blood pressure independent CVD-risk differences between losartan and candesartan treatment in patients with hypertension without known CVD. Seventy-two primary care centres in Sweden were screened for patients who had been prescribed losartan or candesartan between the years 1999 and 2007. Among the 24 943 eligible patients, 14 100 patients were diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed losartan (n = 6771) or candesartan (n = 7329). Patients were linked to Swedish national hospitalizations and death cause register. There was no difference in blood pressure reduction when comparing the losartan and candesartan groups during follow-up. Compared with the losartan group, the candesartan group had a lower adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD (0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.96, P = 0.0062), heart failure (0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, P = 0.0004), cardiac arrhythmias (0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.92, P = 0.0330), and peripheral artery disease (0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.91, P = 0.0140). No difference in blood pressure reduction was observed suggesting that other mechanisms related to different pharmacological properties of the drugs may explain the divergent clinical outcomes.
|
|
