Advertisement

Measuring the Benefits of Antihypertensive Treatment

  • Michael A. Weber
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Practice book series (CCP)

Abstract

Not only physicians and scientists, but also governmental agencies and health insurers are finding it important to use objective measurements of the benefits and cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment. These outcomes can be classified as short-, intermediate-, and long-term. The short-term outcomes are most relevant to the practitioner and include such measures as BP control, laboratory changes, and quality of life. By contrast, the long-term outcomes, typically measured in randomized clinical trials, are of particular interest to policy makers and guidelines writers and focus on whether treatments affect survival and the incidence of major cardiovascular events. Intermediate outcomes, usually measurable within months of starting treatment, deal with such clinical surrogates as treatment-induced changes in left ventricular structure, arterial compliance, and renal function. No longer are the traditional short-term outcomes adequate to describe a new drug; hypertension specialists, formulary committees, health care economists, and even regulatory agencies now expect sponsors to plan studies that define a drug’s full range of outcomes. This chapter discusses some of the criteria for these outcome measures.

Keywords

Antihypertensive Therapy Hypertension Optimal Treatment Health Care Economist Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study Lower Target Blood Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burt VL, Culter JA, Higgins M, Horan MJ, Labarthe D, Whelton P, Brown C, Roccella EJ (1995) Trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the adult US population: data from the health examination surveys, 1960 to 1991. Hypertension 26: 60–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (1997) Arch Intern Med 157: 2413–2466.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlof B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, Menard J, Rahn KH, Wedel H, Westerling S (1998) Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 351: 1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lazarus JM, Bourgoignie JJ, Buckalew VM, Greene T, Levey AS, Milas NC, Paranandi L, Peterson JC, Porush JG, Rauch S, Soucie JM, Stollar C (1997) Achievement and safety of a low blood pressure goal in chronic renal disease. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Hypertension 29: 641–650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Weber

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations