Evaluation of efficacy and safety of losartan potassium in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension as compared to enalapril maleate.

AIM: To study the effect of losartan potassium in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and to compare its efficacy and adverse effect profile with enalaparil maleate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and forty five patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were enrolled in this randomized, double blind, controlled, parallel and multicentric study. Seventy two patients received losartan potassium 50 mg and seventy three received enalapril maleate 5 mg. RESULTS: Losartan potassium reduced the DBP to < 90 mm Hg in 59% of the patients at the end of 8 weeks compared to 45% in the enalapril maleate group. DBP was reduced by 10 or > than 10 mm Hg in 89% of the patients with losartan as compared to the baseline whereas it was 80% in the enalapril group. Percentage of side effects seen in losartan and enalapril groups were 12 and 22 respectively. CONCLUSION: Losartan potassium is an efficacious antihypertensive agent in mild to moderate hypertension. It also has fewer side effects when compared to enalapril maleate.

Drug Utilization in Geriatric Population im a Tertiary.

One hundred and fi fty-two prescriptions of patients aged more than 65 years were picked up from in-patients of ollr hospital and analysed for drug utilization pattern. The mean age of the patients was 69.9 ±5.7 years. The mean number of drugs per prescription were 6.33 ± 2.35. Tablets were used in 48.5%, injections in 39.6%, capsules and syrups in 5.5% each and inhalers in 1.1% of patients. Antibiotics were prescribed for 140 patients, diuretics for 34, ACE inhibitors for 33, Calcium channel blockers for 59, H2 blockers for 84, narcotic analgesics and NSAlDs for 36 and 33 patients respectively. Beta blocker usage was minimal. Digoxin, aspirin and thrombolytics were used in 10, 50 and 5 patients respectively. Compliance was 100% and side effects Iike haemoptysis, gastritis, palpitation and vomiting were seen in I patient each.

Comparative study of omeprazole and famotidine in the treatment of duodenal ulcer.

In a double blind, multicenter, parallel group clinical trial in patients with symptomatic duodenal ulcers, 129 patients were randomized to receive either omeprazole 20 mg once daily (n = 65) or famotidine 40 mg once daily (n = 64) for 2 weeks, and if the ulcers were not healed, for a total of 4 weeks. Seventy four percent of these receiving omeprazole had healed ulcers after 2 weeks compared with 34.3% of those receiving famotidine (p < 0.001). At 4 weeks, the respective figures were 97.3% and 77.6% (p < 0.001). After 2 weeks of treatment, only 11.1% and 29.8% of omeprazole and famotidine treated patients respectively had day time pain (p < 0.02). Diary cards (successfully completed by 2/3rd of patients) showed that omeprazole treated patients required smaller amounts of antacids (p = ns). Over the first two weeks, ulcer healing rate was similar in smokers and non- smokers. No significant side effects were reported in either group. Omeprazole 20 mg/day provides more rapid relief of symptoms and heals a greater proportion of duodenal ulcers at 2 and 4 weeks than famotidine 40 mg/day.