No abstract

Background and Purpose-Evidence of drug efficacy in vascular dementia (VaD) is scanty. Therapeutic trials should address VaD subtypes. We studied the efficacy and safety of the calcium antagonist nimodipine in subcortical VaD. Methods-242 patients defined as affected by subcortical VaD based on clinical (ICD-10) and computed tomography criteria were randomized to oral nimodipine 90 mg/d or placebo. Results-230 patients (121 nimodipine, mean age 75.2Ϯ6.1; 109 placebo, 75.4Ϯ6.0) were valid for the intention-to-treat analysis. At 52 weeks, the Sandoz Clinical Assessment Geriatric scale 5-point variation (primary outcome measure) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, patients on nimodipine performed better than placebo patients in lexical production (PϽ0.01) and less frequently showed deterioration (3 or more point-drop versus baseline) on a Mini-Mental State Examination (28.1% versus 50.5%; 2 PϽ0.01) and Global Deterioration Scale (PϽ0.05). Dropouts and adverse events were all significantly more common among placebo than nimodipine patients, particularly cardiovascular (30 versus 13; RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.60) and cerebrovascular events (28 versus 10; RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 4.98), and behavioral disturbances requiring intervention (22 versus 5; RR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.49 to 10.12). A worst-rank analysis, performed to correct for the effect of the high dropout rate in the placebo group, showed additional significant differences in favor of nimodipine in Set Test and MMSE total scores. Conclusions-Nimodipine may be of some benefit in subcortical VaD. Confirming previous results, the safety analysis of this study shows that in this high-risk population, nimodipine might protect against cardiovascular comorbidities.

No abstract

Despite the results from clinical trials in patients with hypertension and the development of a long list of guidelines for the management of hypertension, many physicians and other healthcare professionals still manage hypertension using approaches that clearly diverge at least partially from the recommendations of these guidelines. Whatever the underlying reasons for physicians' failure to adhere to these guidelines, it is one of the main causes of the high percentage of treated patients with uncontrolled hypertension. This article is a report of the outcomes of a project designed to identify specific discrepancies between hypertension guidelines and clinical practice in Italy then guide the physicians to reach a consensus on hypertension management through discussions with their peers. A total of 1120 internists from all 20 regions in Italy were recruited to participate in workshops conducted between June 2002 and July 2004. They were divided into 57 groups to discuss at least 7 key topics, including the blood pressure level at which to start drug therapy, target-organ damage, isolated systolic hypertension, pulse pressure, clinical trials, generic drugs, and fixed combination drug therapy. The project findings confirmed that the vast majority of internists agree with the guidelines but do not adhere to them completely in clinical practice. Through open discussions that allowed them to identify common viewpoints, the participants may have developed a better awareness of and insight into the guidelines for hypertension management. Hopefully this strategy for group participation will lead to improvements in the management of hypertension throughout Italy.

No abstract