scholarly journals Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive medications, adherence, and clinical outcomes: A population-based retrospective cohort study

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. e1002584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amol A. Verma ◽  
Wayne Khuu ◽  
Mina Tadrous ◽  
Tara Gomes ◽  
Muhammad M. Mamdani
Author(s):  
Gregory L. Hundemer ◽  
Haris Imsirovic ◽  
Anand Vaidya ◽  
Nicholas Yozamp ◽  
Rémi Goupil ◽  
...  

Primary aldosteronism is a common, yet highly underdiagnosed, cause of hypertension that leads to disproportionately high rates of cardiovascular disease. Hypertension plus hypokalemia is a guideline-recommended indication to screen for primary aldosteronism, yet the uptake of this recommendation at the population level remains unknown. We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of adults ≥18 years old in Ontario, Canada, with hypertension plus hypokalemia (potassium <3.5 mEq/L) from 2009 to 2015 with follow-up through 2017. We measured the proportion of individuals who underwent primary aldosteronism screening via the aldosterone-to-renin ratio based upon hypokalemia frequency and severity along with concurrent antihypertensive medication use. We assessed clinical predictors associated with screening via Cox regression. The cohort included 26 533 adults of which only 422 (1.6%) underwent primary aldosteronism screening. When assessed by number of instances of hypokalemia over a 2-year time window, the proportion of eligible patients who were screened increased only modestly from 1.0% (158/15 983) with one instance to 4.8% (71/1494) with ≥5 instances. Among individuals with severe hypokalemia (potassium <3.0 mEq/L), only 3.9% (58/1422) were screened. Among older adults prescribed ≥4 antihypertensive medications, only 1.0% were screened. Subspecialty care with endocrinology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.52 [95% CI, 1.10–2.09]), nephrology (HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.07–1.91]), and cardiology (HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.14–1.70]) were associated with an increased likelihood of screening, whereas age (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94–0.96]) and diabetes (HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.50–0.89]) were inversely associated with screening. In conclusion, population-level uptake of guideline recommendations for primary aldosteronism screening is exceedingly low. Increased education and awareness are critical to bridge this gap.


Author(s):  
Ramaswamy Meenakumari ◽  
Karuppiah Thangaraj ◽  
Arunachalam Sundaram ◽  
Malayappan Meenakshi Sundaram ◽  
Ponnappan Shanmugapriya ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Na Zeng ◽  
Erica Erwin ◽  
Wendy Wen ◽  
Daniel J. Corsi ◽  
Shi Wu Wen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Racial disparities in adverse perinatal outcomes have been studied in other countries, but little has been done for the Canadian population. In this study, we sought to examine the disparities in adverse perinatal outcomes between Asians and Caucasians in Ontario, Canada. Methods We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study that included all Asian and Caucasian women who attended a prenatal screening and resulted in a singleton birth in an Ontario hospital (April 1st, 2015-March 31st, 2017). Generalized estimating equation models were used to estimate the independent adjusted relative risks and adjusted risk difference of adverse perinatal outcomes for Asians compared with Caucasians. Results Among 237,293 eligible women, 31% were Asian and 69% were Caucasian. Asians were at an increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus, placental previa, early preterm birth (< 32 weeks), preterm birth, emergency cesarean section, 3rd and 4th degree perineal tears, low birth weight (< 2500 g, < 1500 g), small-for-gestational-age (<10th percentile, <3rd percentile), neonatal intensive care unit admission, and hyperbilirubinemia requiring treatment, but had lower risks of preeclampsia, macrosomia (birth weight > 4000 g), large-for-gestational-age neonates, 5-min Apgar score < 7, and arterial cord pH ≤7.1, as compared with Caucasians. No difference in risk of elective cesarean section was observed between Asians and Caucasians. Conclusion There are significant differences in several adverse perinatal outcomes between Asians and Caucasians. These differences should be taken into consideration for clinical practices due to the large Asian population in Canada.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document