Objective:To analyze health-related cost of heart failure (HF) and to evaluate health-related source utilization aiming to provide data on the economic burden of HF in actual clinical practice in Turkey.Methods:The study used the Delphi process of seeking expert consensus of opinion including 11 cardiologists who are experienced in HF. The standardized questionnaire comprised items to reflect the opinion of the expert panelists on the distribution of the HF patients in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics and background disease states. Costs related to out-patient follow-up, in-patient follow-up, medications, and other therapies were also evaluated.Results:34.1% of the HF patients were in the age range of 60–69 years, and 62.3% were males. Coronary heart disease was the leading cause of HF (59.6%); 63.6% of the HF patients had reduced ejection fraction (rEF) and 42.3% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA)-II class. Approximately 75 % of the patients were followed up by a cardiology unit. The total annual visit number was estimated as 3.41. Approximately 32% of HF patients were hospitalized 1.64 times a year, for an average of 6.77 days each time. The total annual costs of all HF patients and HF-rEF patients were estimated as 1.537 TL and as 2.141 TL, respectively.Conclusion:The analysis demonstrating the magnitude of the economic impact of HF management on Turkey’s healthcare system may help facilitate health and social policy interventions to improve the prevention and treatment of HF. (Anatol J Cardiol 2016; 16: 554-62)

Many hypertensive patients require ≥2 drugs to achieve blood pressure targets. This study aims to review and analyze the clinical studies conducted with dual or triple combination of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics. Medical literature between January 1990 and April 2012 was reviewed systematically and data from eligible studies were abstracted. Data were analyzed using random‐effects models. Of the 224 studies screened, 7563 eligible patients from 11 studies were included. Triple combinations of ARBs (olmesartan or valsartan), CCBs (amlodipine), and diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide) at any dose provided more blood pressure reduction in office and 24‐hour ambulatory measurements than any dual combination of these molecules (P<.0001 for both). Significantly more patients achieved blood pressure targets with triple combinations (odds ratio, 2.16; P<.0001). Triple combinations did not increase adverse event risk (odds ratio, 0.96; P=.426). Triple combinations at any dose seem to decrease blood pressure more effectively than dual combination of the same molecules without any remarkable risk elevation for adverse events. Further prospective studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of triple combinations, especially in the form of single pills, are required. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;00:00–00. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract

Hypertension, which is pointed to be the most frequent cause of death in the World and in Turkey and defined by the World Health Organization as global health crisis and the prominent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, is a problem threatening public health. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in pathophysiology and in turn treatment of the disease. The drugs suppressing RAS are recommended both for monotherapy and combinations. Together with the blood pressure lowering effects and positive contributions of this group of drugs to the cardiovascular and renal process have been proved by clinical studies. In this review, the recent developments about the hypertension treatment were summarized and the place of valsartan molecule, being an angiotensin receptor blocker in hypertension treatment, was examined in the light of the studies in which the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of valsartan were evaluated. (Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 2014; 14(Suppl 2): S20-S4)

Objective:While the number of meta-analyses published has increased recently, most of them have problems in the design, analysis, and/or presentation. An example of meta-analyses with a study selection bias is a meta-analysis of over 160,000 patients in 20 clinical trials, published in Eur Heart J in 2012 by van Vark, which concluded that the significant effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition on all-cause mortality was limited to the class of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), whereas no mortality reduction could be demonstrated with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Here, we aimed to discuss how to select studies for a meta-analysis and to present our results of a re-analysis of the van Vark data.Methods:The data were re-analyzed in three steps: firstly, only ACEI/ARB-based studies (4 ACEI and 12 ARB studies) were included; secondly, placebo-controlled studies were excluded, and 10 studies left were analyzed; and thirdly, 2 studies that were retracted after the manuscript of van Vark had been published were excluded. The final analysis included 8 studies with ~65,000 patients (3 ACEI and 5 ARB studies).Results:The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were 0.992 (95% CI 0.899-1.095; p=0.875) and 1.017 (0.932-1.110; p=0.703) for the ACEI versus control group and 1.007 (0.958-1.059; p=0.778) and 0.967 (0.911-1.025; p=0.258) for the ARB versus control group in the first step. The results were similar in the second and third steps.Conclusion:The studies to be included in meta-analyses, particularly comparing ACEIs and ARBs, should be chosen carefully.