UNASSIGNED: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) requires marketing authorization holders to submit a PIL in both Arabic and English language. However, the readability of imprinted and disseminated Patient information leaflets (PILs) was not assessed extensively in Saudi Arabia. This study aims to assess the readability of PIL of antihypertensive drugs in both Arabic and English languages.
UNASSIGNED: This study was a descriptive quantitative analysis conducted in Saudi Arabia in August 2021. PILs of all oral antihypertensive medications in Saudi Arabia were included in the study. The Arabic and English PILs were extracted from the Saudi Drugs Information System (SDI) and pharmaceutical companies\' registration documents. The study used Flesch-Kincaid grade level to assess the readability of English and sentence length to assess the Arabic texts. Descriptive analyses were used to assess the readability scores and the mean differences.
UNASSIGNED: It was found that almost 88% of English PILs were above recommended readability level compared to 79% of Arabic PILs. About 89% of English PILs of generic and 86% of brand-name medications were above the readability cutoff point compared with 83% of Arabic PILs of generic and 68% of brand-name medications. The means of grade level for readability of PILs for the widely used antihypertensive medications including angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), antiadrenergic, diuretics, Beta-blockers (BBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and combination antihypertensive medications, and CCBs were higher than the recommended readability level (p < 0.05). The highest mean grade level for readability among English PILs was for combinations of antihypertensive agents (9.35 ± 1.38, p 0.01) and among Arabic PILs was for ARBs (6.15 ± 1.62, p < 0.01).
UNASSIGNED: The majority of PILs of antihypertensive medications were above the recommended readability level that can be understood by the majority of the public, especially among generic medications and the most widely used antihypertensive medications. The study findings highlight the need of implementing guidelines to improve the readability of information imprinted in PILs and adopt new regulations requiring readability assessment for manufactures before submitting the PILs to the SFDA.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify associations between the risk of acute respiratory failure (ARF) and types of antihypertensive agents in patients with viral pneumonia.
METHODS: In this case-control study, data extracted from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database were analysed. The base population comprised patients with viral pneumonia treated from 2000 to 2013. The case group comprised patients with ARF and the control group comprised participants without ARF. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a multivariable logistic regression model.
RESULTS: In total, 4427 viral pneumonia patients with ARF and 4427 matched control participants without ARF were recruited. Patients with diabetes, alcohol-related disease, asthma, chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, stroke, acute pulmonary oedema and shock had increased odds of developing ARF, especially shock (adjusted OR = 49.3; 95% CI = 27.4, 88.7), cancer (12.6; 8.67, 18.2) and stroke (7.51; 5.32, 10.6). Increasing odds of developing ARF were noted in patients using potassium-sparing diuretics (2.95; 1.54, 5.64), loop diuretics (68.2; 48.1, 96.6), calcium channel blockers (1.64; 1.26, 2.13) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (1.70; 1.15, 2.53). Patients with prescriptions of α-blockers (0.44; 0.26, 0.74), β-blockers (0.37; 0.26, 0.52), thiazides (0.38; 0.25, 0.59) and angiotensin receptor blockers (0.65; 0.51, 0.83) had lower odds of having ARF.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with viral pneumonia who received α-blockers, β-blockers, thiazides or angiotensin receptor blockers during hospitalisation had a lower risk of developing ARF.

To identify patients with hypertension with resistant and controlled blood pressure (BP) using electronic health records (EHRs) in order to elucidate practices in the real-world clinical treatment of hypertension and to enable future genetic studies.
Using EHRs, we developed and validated algorithms to identify patients with resistant and controlled hypertension.
An academic medical centre in Nashville, Tennessee.
European-American (EA) and African-American (AA) patients with hypertension.
Demographic characteristics: race, age, gender, body mass index, outpatient BPs and the history of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stage 3, ischaemic heart disease, transient ischaemic attack, atrial fibrillation and sleep apnoea.
All antihypertensive medication classes prescribed to a patient at the time of classification and ever prescribed following classification.
The algorithms had performance metrics exceeding 92%. The prevalence of resistant hypertension in the total hypertensive population was 7.3% in EA and 10.5% in AA. At diagnosis, AA were younger, heavier, more often female and had a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes and higher BPs than EA. AA with resistant hypertension were more likely to be treated with vasodilators, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and alpha-2 agonists while EA were more likely to be treated with angiotensin receptor blockers, renin inhibitors and beta blockers. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists use was increased in patients treated with more than four antihypertensive medications compared with patients treated with three (12.4% vs 2.6% in EA, p<0.001; 12.3% vs 2.8% in AA, p<0.001). The number of patients treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist increased to 37.4% in EA and 41.2% in AA over a mean follow-up period of 7.4 and 8.7 years, respectively.
Clinical treatment of resistant hypertension differs in EA and AA patients. These results demonstrate the feasibility of identifying resistant hypertension using an EHR.