[Polymyalgia rheumatica in general practice]

BACKGROUND

Polymyalgia rheumatica is often diagnosed and treated in general practice. Rheumatologists have expressed concern about overdiagnosing and steroid treatment that conceals other diseases and deteriorating osteoporosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A ten-year material (1985-94) of polymyalgia rheumatica from a Norwegian general practice.

RESULTS

Six out of 54 patients with the diagnosis polymyalgia rheumatica had their diagnose changed after one year. Average prednisolone starting dose was 31 mg, median treatment time for women was 20 months and for men 29 months. 10% were treated more than ten years, and 20% relapsed. Patients with fractures in the follow-up period had longer treatment periods; this indicates that a shorter treatment time may be important in preventing osteoporosis.

INTERPRETATION

Diagnosing polymyalgia rheumatica can be done in general practice if there is good communication with second-line medical-services in cases with indistinct or serious symptoms. It is important to have in mind temporal arteritis, rheumatoid arthritis and malignancies. Treatment and follow-up of these patients is a task that needs stable and continuous relations between patient and doctor with special focus on the osteoporosis problem.

[Use of new antidepressive agents in general practice]

There is much discussion about the use of the new antidepressant drugs. Some advocate a more liberal use while others criticize overprescribing. Our study examines the indication, dosage and length of treatment in five family practices. Records of 208 patients prescribed one of three new antidepressants in 1995 were reviewed. 90% had depression or anxiety while 10% received medication for pain or for other symptoms. Dosage and median length of treatment were in accordance with recommended guidelines. However, a number of patients discontinue their medication within a month of start of treatment. The study did not examine the reason for this, but side effects or lack of effect are possible explanations. 36 patients were treated for a year or longer and we raise the question whether abstinence-like symptoms or the physicians prescribing practice can explain this finding. The article also examines the increased sale of the new antidepressants in Norway and in Aust-Agder county specifically, the county in Norway with the largest per capita sale of these drugs.

[Lisinopril and nifedipine have neutral effects on lipids]

In a randomized, double blind, parallel-group, multicentre study in Norway, 97 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (mean blood pressure 159/104 mm Hg) were treated with either lisinopril 10-40 mg or nifedipine 20-80 mg and the effects on blood lipids were evaluated. Complete results of laboratory analyses are given for 80 patients. After a 4 week run-in and placebo period, antihypertensive treatment was given for the next 10 weeks. During treatment with lisinopril the changes in lipids were +2.1% for total cholesterol, +0.7% for HDL-cholesterol, +3.8% for triglycerides and -6.1% for ratio HDL/cholesterol-HDL. For nifedipine the corresponding values were -2.4% for cholesterol, -5.8% for HDL-cholesterol, +8.0% for triglycerides and +3.2% for ratio. None of these changes was statistically significant. Both lisinopril and nifedipine lowered the blood pressure significantly, 18.1/12.0 mm Hg with lisonopril (p < 0.01 for both systolic and diastolic pressure) and 8.0/8.5 mm Hg with nifedipine (p < 0.01 for both respectively). Both drugs were well tolerated. In conclusion, neither lisinopril nor nifedipine had any negative impact on lipid levels.

Female preponderance for lisinopril-induced cough in hypertension

In a double-blind double-dummy multicenter study, patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to receive either nifedipine (n = 416, 47.6% women) or lisinopril (n = 412, 50% women), and side effects were registered by specific questioning, by spontaneous reports, and by use of visual analog scales. Cough was spontaneously reported to occur in 8.5% with lisinopril compared to 3.1% with nifedipine. Women treated with lisinopril reported cough spontaneously three times more often than men, 12.6% v 4.4%, whereas no differences between the sexes were observed during the placebo period or during nifedipine treatment. Similar gender differences were observed during specific questioning. Furthermore, nonsmokers reported an increase in cough more often than did smokers.

Effect and tolerability of combining lovastatin with nifedipine or lisinopril

Single cardiovascular risk factor intervention is probably not sufficient to prevent atherosclerosis progression. There is a lack of data on concomitant use of hypocholesterolemic agents and antihypertensive drugs with respect to possible interactions and adverse experiences. We studied 293 patients (below 65 years of age) under treatment with either lisinopril (n = 144) or nifedipine (n = 149) for mild to moderate hypertension for 10 weeks, and with serum cholesterol above 6.5 mmol/L, who were randomized to either lovastatin 20 mg every day or placebo in a double-blind, double-dummy design for 6 weeks. Lovastatin effectively lowered cholesterol by 16% and 15% in the lisinopril and nifedipine group respectively (P < .01 compared to placebo for both groups) without any negative impact on the antihypertensive efficacy of either lisinopril or nifedipine. The drugs in combination were well tolerated and did not affect the well-being of the patients, and did not cause any more adverse effects than the antihypertensive agents alone. Liver enzymes increased slightly during lovastatin therapy, while no case of myopathy was reported. Combined therapy with lovastatin and antihypertensive therapy can be safely undertaken.

[Treatment with lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension. A Norwegian multicenter study of the effect, tolerance and quality of life of 828 patients]

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure more than nifedipine did (n = 416) after ten weeks treatment in patients (40-70 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was tolerated better than nifedipine, with fewer withdrawals. Adverse experiences reported after a general question on discomfort were significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine. Questions referring specifically to symptoms revealed higher frequency of coughing with lisinopril, while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently with nifedipine. Quality of life was similarly assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant differences in well-being during treatment were found for either drug, except in the case of the highest dose level of nifedipine, which caused a deterioration of well-being.

[Cough during treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is gender related]

In a Norwegian, double-blind, double-dummy multicenter study, 828 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to treatment by either lisinopril or nifedipine. One of the aims of the study was to specifically investigate the frequency of side effects. Spontaneously reported coughing reached 8.5% for lisinopril, as against 3.1% for nifedipine. In two patients coughing led to withdrawal from the study, and in another three it contributed partially to discontinuation of the treatment. A significant sex difference was found for spontaneously reported coughing among patients on lisinopril; 12.6% of the women and 4.4% of the men. A similar difference between the sexes was found for specific questioning about coughing. Use of a visual analogue scale by both patient and spouse revealed similar frequency of coughing as when reported spontaneously. The reason for sex being an important determinant for lisinopril-induced coughing remains obscure.

Lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension? A Norwegian multicenter study on efficacy, tolerability and quality of life in 828 patients

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412; average dose 18.8 mg) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (change = 20.2/13.8 mmHg; P less than 0.01/P less than 0.01) more than nifedipine (n = 416; average dose 37.4 mg; change = 13.3/11.2 mmHg) after 10-week treatment in patients, aged 40-70 years, with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was better tolerated than nifedipine. The withdrawals from treatment were fewer in the lisinopril-treated group (11 versus 46; P less than 0.01). The frequency of adverse experiences reported after a general question of discomfort was significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine (P less than 0.01). When questioned on specific symptoms, frequency of coughing was higher with lisinopril (P less than 0.01), while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently (P less than 0.01, for all) in the nifedipine-treated group. Quality of life was assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant changes in wellbeing were observed for either drug, except for the highest dose level of nifedipine which caused a deterioration.