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.
In 2018, at the annual congresses of the European Society of Hypertension and European Society of Cardiology, the updated guidelines on the diagnostics, management and prevention of arterial hypertension were announced, followed by their publication in the European Heart Journal. The guidelines present a comprehensive overview on the definition and classification of arterial hypertension, approaches to the blood pressure measurement, assessment of the target organ damage, special patient subgroups and other issues. Despite a detailed analysis of various issues of the diagnostics and treatment of hypertension, some of the statements appear to be disputable and raise discussion among specialists in hypertension field. The diagnostic criteria, threshold and target blood pressure levels are the most debatable issues involving comparisons with the guidelines of the American Heart Association (2017). This paper gathers a number of comments on the less discussed questions of the diagnostics, treatment and prevention of hypertension. This collection of letters of the specialists, members of the Russian Society of Cardiology includes both personal expert opinions and well-known facts, reflects the controversy of the available evidence and indicates the blanks and gaps in hypertensiology giving perspective for potential future studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.