Key result
Russian physicians prescribed I1-imidazoline receptor agonists as first-line (15.0% vs 5.0%) and second-line (48.0% vs 21.0%) therapy for hypertension more often than physicians in other countries.
Why the study?
Analyzing routine clinical management of hypertensive patients helps identify ways to minimize hypertension-associated cardiovascular and renal adverse outcomes, motivating a comparison of management strategies and I1-imidazoline receptor agonist use between Russia and other countries.
Cross-Sectional
Yes
Russian physicians demonstrate higher awareness and earlier prescription of I1-imidazoline receptor agonists for hypertension compared to their international peers, often driven by national guidelines and perceived metabolic benefits.
Regional prescribing differences should not yet influence practice; leaves open comparative effectiveness of I1-imidazoline agonists in hypertension.
Analysis of routine clinical practice of hypertensive patient management represents one of the important tools in the search for further ways to minimize hypertension-associated cardiovascular and renal adverse outcomes. AIM: To compare the strategies for hypertension management and features of clinical use of I1-imidazoline receptor (I1-IR) agonists in the Russian Federation and other countries where the STRAIGHT (Selective imidazoline receptor agonists Treatment Recommendation and Action In Global management of HyperTension) study was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a cross-sectional online study involving physicians of various specializations. The study was conducted from January 18 to July 1, 2019, in seven countries with a high rate of I1-IR agonist prescription, including Russia. RESULTS: A total of 125 (4.5%) responders filled out the survey in the Russian Federation, which was somewhat lower than in other countries (6.8%). The participants were mostly general practitioners (54.0%) and cardiologists (42.0%), while in other countries greater diversity was seen. Most Russian physicians (83.0%) seemed to rely on national clinical guidelines in their routine practice, while in other countries the US guidelines were more popular (66.0%). The majority of responders stated that they took into account the traditional risk factors of hypertension when initiating the therapy; every second responder noted if sleep apnea was present. Awareness of I1-IR agonists, their prescription rate and their preference were higher in Russia. The main reported benefits of I1-IR agonists were their efficacy, including in resistant hypertension, and their metabolic effects (in Russia). Most participants preferred I1-IR agonists as third-line therapy (65.0% in Russia vs 60.0% in other countries) and in combination with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) (55.0% in Russia vs 54.0% in other countries). Compared to responders from other countries, Russian physicians prescribe I1-IR agonists as first-line (15.0% vs 5.0%) and second-line (48.0% vs 21.0%) therapy more often. CONCLUSION: Russian physicians were the most aware of I1-IR agonists and tended to prescribe drugs of this class for hypertension management more often, and I1-IR agonist combination with ACEi was preferable compared to physician responders from other countries. Antihypertensive efficacy and metabolic effects were reported as the major benefits of I1-IR agonist therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Конради et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension. I1-imidazoline receptor (I1-IR) agonists prescription vs. Physicians from other countries was evaluated on Strategies for hypertension management and clinical use of I1-IR agonists. Russian physicians prescribed I1-imidazoline receptor agonists as first-line (15.0% vs 5.0%) and second-line (48.0% vs 21.0%) therapy for hypertension more often than physicians in other countries.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: