MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal trends in antihypertensive drug prescriptions in Canada before and after introduction of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program

2003· article· en· W2326995546 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Norman R.C. Campbell, Finlay A. McAlister, Rollin Brant, Mitchell Levine, Denis Drouin, Ross D. Feldman, Robert J. Herman, Kelly B. Zarnke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCalgary General HospitalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionDigoxinAntihypertensive drugBlood pressureGuidelineInternal medicineDiureticConfidence intervalCardiologyHeart failurePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Poor control of hypertension is a world-wide health issue. In 1999, the Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) was launched to annually develop and implement evidence-based hypertension guidelines in an effort to improve hypertension control rates. This study was designed to examine temporal trends in antihypertensive drug prescribing and to explore whether drug prescriptions changed after initiation of the new CHEP guideline process. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used longitudinal Canadian dispensing data (from the IMS CompuScript database; IMS Health, Pointe-Claire, Quebec) to examine antihypertensive prescriptions in the 3 years prior to and the 3 years following introduction of the new CHEP process. To control for temporal changes in the incidence of other cardiovascular conditions for which antihypertensive agents may be prescribed for their non-blood pressure-lowering effects (for example, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for heart failure or coronary artery disease), prescription rates for digoxin, loop diuretics, and nitrates were also examined. RESULTS: Prescriptions for all antihypertensive agents increased significantly between 1996 and 2001 [11% for thiazides, 45% for beta-blockers, 68% for ACE inhibitors, 19% for calcium channel blockers, and 4332% for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)]. Loop diuretic prescriptions increased 27%, but prescriptions for digoxin (-19%) and nitrates (-8%) declined over this time frame. Time series analyses demonstrated increases in the prescription growth rate for all four antihypertensive drug classes recommended in CHEP for the period 1999-2001 compared with 1996-1998, which were statistically significantly and of substantial magnitude (absolute annual increase in prescription growth rate of 4.6% (95% confidence interval 3.5-5.9%) for thiazides, 3.0% (1.8-4.2%) for beta-blockers, 8.2% (6.7-9.7%) for ACE inhibitors, and 6.1% (4.4-7.8%) for calcium channel blockers). The growth rate in nitrate prescriptions did not significantly change [1.1% (-0.6 to +3.0%)] and, although the changes in growth rate for loop diuretics [4.7% (3.2-6.3%)] and digoxin [2.1% (0.6-3.5%)] were statistically significant, they were of smaller magnitude than the changes in the four recommended antihypertensive agents. Similar results were observed when analysis was restricted to new prescriptions only. CONCLUSIONS: Prescriptions for all antihypertensive drugs increased substantially in Canada between 1996 and 2001; the rate of increase was significantly greater after 1999 for all four drugs recommended as first-line therapy in the annual CHEP guidelines. This preliminary data is encouraging, but a national survey of blood pressure control is needed to fully evaluate the impact of the new Canadian guideline process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207