-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective. Cost-effectiveness analysis of combined enalapril-nitrendipine therapy (E/N), as second-line therapy for light or moderate hypertension.Design. Theoretical model of cost-effectiveness, based on the norms of hypertension treatment in primary care, the considered view of a panel of experts and the direct costs of health resources and purchase of medication. Setting. Spanish National Health system.Participants. Simulation of 1000 patients with hypertension, with a time horizon of one year.Interventions. After a prior failure of the first-line treatment with either enalapril or nitrendipine, an evaluation was made of the possibilities of increasing dosage of the first-line treatment, changing the drug or administering the E/N combination.Main measurement. The likelihoods, in the primary care context, of controlling diastolic pressure, of abandonment and of using the two strategies or not were measured, as were the use of health resources in each situation, and costs of resource use and of medication.Results. The cost-effectiveness quotient of the combined E/N treatment was consistently more efficient than the increase in dose or change to another drug. This was so, whether the treatment was started with enalapril (301.06 euros vs 337.97 euros and 588.42 euros) or with nitrendipine (331.5 euros vs 469.88 euros and 579.76 euros).Conclusions. Combined therapy (E/N) is, on the basis of the assumptions made in the model, an efficient therapy option. Therefore, it can be recommended for prescription.
Atención Primaria 05/2003; 31(6):366-71. · 0.63 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hypertension is an important cardiovascular risk factor and the goal of its pharmacologic treatment is to reduce morbidity and mortality. Treatment is usually initiated with a low dose of a single agent and titrated to a higher dose as required. As many as 50% of patients require the addition of a second agent to achieve satisfactory blood pressure control. The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response relationship of nitrendipine and enalapril alone or in fixed combination in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. A total of 496 patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design, parallel-group clinical trial comparing placebo, nitrendipine (5, 10, and 20 mg) and enalapril (5, 10, and 20 mg) alone or in combination. After a single-blind, 2-week placebo run-in period, 414 patients whose diastolic blood pressure ranged between 90-109 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a treatment group. The combination of nitrendipine and enalapril, particularly regimens including nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 5 or 10 mg, were significantly superior to both monotherapies; mean diastolic blood pressure reductions from baseline to last visit were -12.5 and -14.3 mm Hg, respectively. Response surface analysis provided further evidence that these combinations were optimal in terms of anti-hypertensive efficacy. All treatments were well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. In summary, the anti-hypertensive efficacy of the combination was found to be superior to both monotherapies at any doses. The dose combination achieving the greatest blood pressure reduction was nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 10 mg.
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 01/2002; 38(6):840-9. · 2.29 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and efficacy of the anti-HAV antibodies detection in institucions for mentally retarded people in the city of Alicante.
Prevalence study.
Two institucions for mentally retarded people in the city of Alicante.
One hundred and seven residents and seventy seven in care of them.
We have investigated the anti-HAV antibodies prevalence by enzymeinmunoanalysis of microparticle test. The efficacy of the anti-HAV antibodies detection before the vaccination has been studied by calculating the threshold of prevalence with the following formula: unit cost of detection + (1 - X) x unit cost vaccination anti-HAV negative subjects = unit cost vaccination.
The global prevalence of anti-HAV antibodies was 56.5% (95% CI, 49-63.7). The prevalence of the residents was 55.1% (95% CI, 45.2-64.7) and 58.4% in care of them (95% CI, 46.6-69.5). Among the sociodemographic variables evaluated only the age was associated with the prevalence of anti-HAV antibodies (p < 0.001). The unit cost of prevaccination detection of anti-HAV antibodies was calculated as 998 pesetas and the unit cost of the vaccination as 3595, obtaining a prevalence anti-HAV threshold of 27.8%.
The prevalence of anti-HAV antibodies in this collective studied is similar to the prevalence of anti-HAV antibodies of the spaniard population. The direct vaccination without a previous marker study is recommended to people under the age of 31 in this population group.
Atención Primaria 05/2000; 25(8):552-5. · 0.63 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Analgesics can avoid postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate their prescription after abdominal surgery.
Prospective study including patients who had undergone abdominal surgery in two hospitals in Barcelona, in 1993. Prescription and administration of analgesic drugs, and pain severity during the first 48 hours of the postoperative period were evaluated.
One hundred and sixty-four patients (83 men) were included. The most frequently prescribed drugs were metamizol (111; 68%), pethidine (83, 51%), and diclofenac (44; 27%). A high percentage of analgesic prescriptions on an "as needed" basis was recorded. Administered doses were lower than those recommended, and lower than those prescribed. Fifty-three percent of patients suffered significant pain during the first day.
A too low proportion of analgesic drugs is prescribed in a predetermined schedule, in contrast to "as needed" prescription. Opiate derivatives are underused. All analgesic drugs are prescribed at inadequate dosage. This prescription pattern is associated with a high prevalence of postoperative pain.
Medicina Clínica 03/1997; 108(4):136-40. · 1.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In an open clinical trial we assessed the tolerance and safety of the 1:1 conversion of traditional cyclosporine A (CyA) to a new cyclosporine formulation based on a microemulsion technology (CyN) in 18 patients with stable renal allografts. 56% patients were female. Median patient age was 40.9 +/- 3.2 years (range 18 to 65). Renal transplantation was performed in 24.1 +/- 4.6 months (range 6 to 67 months), prior to the beginning of the study, and 67% of the transplants were from cadaveric donor. The most frequent underlying renal disease was glomerulonephritis (44.4%). None of the patients entering the study were withdrawn prematurely. After 2 weeks of observation for graft function stability, the study was divided in two phases: I: during 4 weeks the patients received CyA traditional at fixed doses (Mean dose administered 3.056 +/- 0.25 mg/Kg/d) and II: during the consecutive 6 weeks with conversion to CyN, with doses adjustment as required (Mean dose 2.887 +/- 0.21 mg/Kg/d). Clinical events, adverse reactions and laboratory parameters were evaluated. Levels of 100-200 ng/ml measured by monoclonal specific fluorescence polarization immunoassay were considered appropriate. There were no significant changes in physical examination and laboratory parameters between phases. The incidence of adverse reactions reported in phase I was only gingival hypertrophy (5%) which persisted in phase II, qualified as probably related to the cyclosporine, and in phase II tremor in 17%, qualified as definitively related. Both drugs were well tolerated and there was no report of acute rejection during the study. We conclude that the tolerance and safety of the 1:1 conversion of CyA to CyN were confirmed by our results, and considering the improved pharmacokinetic properties of the second, the microemulsion presentation will be used preferentially as immunosuppressive drug in the treatment of stable kidney transplant patients.
Investigación clínica 01/1996; 36(4):183-96.
