Postmarketing Surveillance of Perindopril in Australia
- 5 Downloads
Perindopril was released on the Australian market in 1992 and was the third angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to be marketed in this country. A general practice postmarketing surveillance study was undertaken for 12 months in 1191 patients who were prescribed Perindopril to treat hypertension or cardiac failure. Clinical improvement was reported in approximately 80% of patients and this continued throughout the study in 70%. The drug was well tolerated and its adverse effect profile was similar to that of other ACE inhibitors, with cough as the principal effect. Hypotension was uncommon and occurred in only 4 patients. 45 patients were hospitalised during the study primarily because of cardiovascular events. 11 patients died during the study, and 7 of these were more than 80 years of age. In conclusion, Perindopril was an effective, well tolerated drug when used in general practice to treat hypertension and cardiac failure.
KeywordsAdis International Limited Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Captopril Enalapril Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fletcher AR Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison. J Royal Soc Med 1991; 84: 341–4Google Scholar
- 3.Kurowski M. The SPALA Project — an intensive monitoring system for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In: Kurowski M, editor. Clinical Pharmacoepidemiology [data on file]Google Scholar
- 5.Thurston A, Mimran A, Zanchetti A, et al. A double blind comparison of Perindopril and atenolol in essential hypertension. J Human Hypertens 1990; 4: 547–52Google Scholar
- 6.Lees KR, Reid JL, Scott MGB, et al. Captopril versus Perindopril: a double blind study in essential hypertension. J Human Hypertens 1989; 3: 17–22Google Scholar
- 7.Morgan TO and Australian Multicentre Study Group. Australian Multicentre Study of Perindopril compared with atenolol in the management of hypertension. JAMA SEA 1990; 6 Suppl. (12): 18–22Google Scholar