[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.92.62. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Editor's Correspondence
November 26, 2001

Cohen vs PDR

Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(21):2622-2623. doi:

I read with interest Dr Cohen's perfervid criticism of the PDR, which he assails as being neither current nor reflecting evolving standards of care, and, moreover, suggests that if it is not remedied, "perhaps the free dissemination of the PDR should be discouraged, and an alternative, objective source of accurate, current information should be created in its place."

Cohen's assault on the PDR is leveled at his perceived singular failure of the PDR to timely publicize the very lowest effective doses of antihypertensive drugs, observing that the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI), published 3 years earlier, recommended lower initial doses for 23 of 40 drugs (compared with the 1999 and 2000 editions of the PDR), and also finding 2 instances in which the American Hospital Formulary Service recommended even smaller doses for some patients than the JNC VI or the PDR.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×