European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 64, Issue 12, pp 1223–1229 | Cite as

Utilisation of angiotensin receptor blockers in Sweden: combining survey and register data to study adherence to prescribing guidelines

  • Pia Frisk
  • Tor-Olov Mellgren
  • Niklas Hedberg
  • Anita Berlin
  • Fredrik Granath
  • Björn Wettermark
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription

Abstract

Purpose

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) offer a new treatment alternative for patients with hypertension and heart failure. Due to comparatively high prices, most guidelines suggest ARBs be restricted to patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi). We analysed the prescribing patterns of ARBs in Sweden by combining prescription register data with patient self-reported data.

Methods

Survey data from 517 patients dispensed ARBs in 55 pharmacies and data on dispensed prescriptions from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register were used to study indication, comorbidity and whether ARBs were initiated as first-line treatment.

Results

In 2006, ARBs were dispensed to 3.6% of the Swedish population. The survey showed that 92% used them for hypertension. Register data showed that 23% of all patients initiated on an ARB had not been prescribed any other antihypertensive drugs 1 year prior to the initiation.

Conclusions

ARBs are commonly used in Sweden, mainly to treat hypertension. Adherence to prescribing guidelines may be improved.

Keywords

Angiotensin receptor blockers Drug utilisation Guidelines Prescribing ACE inhibitors Patient survey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The staff at the pharmacies involved in the survey are gratefully acknowledged for their participation. Andrejs Leimanis at the Centre for Epidemiology, National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden, is gratefully acknowledged for part of the data analysis. Ulrika Benholm and Kristina Lönngren at the National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies, Stockholm, Sweden, are gratefully acknowledged for their part in the study preparation. We also acknowledged Dr. Brian Godman, UK, for valuable comments.

The study was funded by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board.

References

  1. 1.
    Kaplan W, Laing R (2004) Priority Medicines for Europe and the World Project. A Public Health Approach to Innovation. WHO, Geneva. Retrieved on 2008.07.21 from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_EDM_PAR_2004.7.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Leal J, Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray A, Petersen S, Rayner M (2006) Economic burden of cardiovascular diseases in the enlarged European Union. Eur Heart J 27:1610–1619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mancia G et al (2007) 2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 28:1462–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Staessen JA, Li Y, Thijs L, Wang JG (2005) Blood pressure reduction and cardiovascular prevention: an update including the 2003–2004 secondary prevention trials. Hypertens Res 28:385–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swedberg K, Cleland J, Dargie H, Drexler H, Follath F, Komajda M et al (2005) Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 26:1115–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matchar DB, McCrory DC, Orlando LA, Patel MR, Patel UD, Patwardhan MB et al (2008) Systematic review: Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for treating essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med 148:16–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U et al (2002) Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 359:995–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, Brunner HR, Ekman S, Hansson L et al (2004) Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 363:2022–2031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Olofsson B et al (2003) The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 21:875–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) (2004) Moderately Elevated Blood Pressure. SBU report 170. Stockholm. Retrieved on 2008.04.18 from http://www.sbu.se/en/Published/Yellow/Moderately-Elevated-Blood-Pressure/
  11. 11.
    Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, Held P, Michelson EL, Olofsson B et al (2003) Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial. Lancet 362:772–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Velazquez EJ, Rouleau JL, Kober L, Maggioni AP et al (2003) Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med 349(20):1893–1906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL et al (2003) Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet 362:759–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fletcher AE, Palmer AJ, Bulpitt CJ (1994) Cough with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: how much of a problem? J Hypertens Suppl 12:S43–S47Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Board price database, http://www.lfn.se
  16. 16.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr et al (2003) The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 289:2560–2572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG et al (2005) ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure). Circulation 112:e154–e235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greving JP, Denig P, van der Veen WJ, Beltman FW, Sturkenboom MC, de Zeeuw D et al (2004) Does comorbidity explain trends in prescribing of newer antihypertensive agents? J Hypertens 22:2209–2215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackevicius CA, Tu K, Filate WA, Brien SE, Tu JV et al (2003) Trends in cardiovascular drug utilization and drug expenditures in Canada between 1996 and 2001. Can J Cardiol 19:1359–1366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walley T, Duggan AK, Haycox AR, Niziol CJ (2003) Treatment for newly diagnosed hypertension: patterns of prescribing and antihypertensive effectiveness in the UK. J R Soc Med 96:525–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wettermark B, Hammar N, MichaelFored C, Leimanis A, Otterblad Olausson P, Bergman U et al (2007) The new Swedish Prescribed Drug Register–opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological research and experience from the first six months. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16:726–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (2007) Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. WHO Collaborationg Center for Drug Statistics Methodology, Oslo, www.whocc.no
  23. 23.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (2003) Introduction to Drug Utilisation Research, NLM classification WB 330, OsloGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hallas S (2006) Templates for Analysis of Individual-Level Prescription Data. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 98:260–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feldman HI, Strom BL (1991) Utilisation of drugs for diabetes mellitus. Drug Saf 6:220–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strom B (2005) Pharmacoepidemiology, 4th edn. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Charlton R (2000) Research: is an ‘ideal’ questionnaire possible? Int J Clin Pract 54:356–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jesson J (2001) Cross-sectional studies in prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther 26:397–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sibbald B, Addington-Hall JM, Brenneman D, Freeling P (1994) Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract 44:297–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bloom BS (1998) Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy. Clin Ther 20:671–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Degli Esposti E, Sturani A, Di Martino M, Falasca P, Novi MV, Baio G et al (2002) Long-term persistence with antihypertensive drugs in new patients. J Human Hypertens 16:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greving JP, Denig P, van der Veen WJ, Beltman FW, Sturkenboom MC, de Zeeuw D et al (2005) Uptake of angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 61:461–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perreault S, Lamarre D, Blais L, Dragomir A, Berbiche D et al (2005) Persistence with treatment in newly treated middle-aged patients with essential hypertension. Ann Pharmacother 39:1401–1408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Poluzzi E, Strahinja P, Vargiu A, Chiabrando G, Silvani MC et al (2005) Initial treatment of hypertension and adherence to therapy in general practice in Italy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 61:603–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Greving JP, Denig P, van der Veen WJ, Beltman FW, Sturkenboom MC, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM (2006) Determinants for the adoption of angiotensin II receptor blockers by general practitioners. Soc Sci Med 63:2890–2898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN) (2008) Summary: A review of medicines for lowering blood pressure. Stockholm. Retrieved on 2008.04.18 from http://www.lfn.se/LFNTemplates/Page____1779.aspx

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pia Frisk
    • 1
  • Tor-Olov Mellgren
    • 2
  • Niklas Hedberg
    • 2
  • Anita Berlin
    • 1
  • Fredrik Granath
    • 3
  • Björn Wettermark
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies (Apoteket AB)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN)StockholmSweden
  3. 3.Karolinska Institutet, Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of MedicineKarolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Karolinska Institutet, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratory MedicineKarolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations