Objectives: To study considerations used by professional and academic leaders to assess the position of new cardiovascular drugs in the therapeutic regimen in relationship to professional characteristics and the level of prescribing.

Methods: Interviews with 39 internists, cardiologists, general practitioners, and hospital pharmacists about considerations regarding the therapeutic position and prescribing of a new cardiovascular drug (losartan or atorvastatin) and professional characteristics. Considerations were classified according to Rogers' characteristics of an innovation, i.e., referring to the drug's relative advantage, compatibility, or complexity. Proportions of respondents mentioning advantageous, comparable, and/or disadvantageous characteristics were used to construct patterns to analyze an overall evaluation of the drugs in relation to professional characteristics and level of prescribing.

Results: The majority of considerations referred to the degree of relative advantage, but different subjects were emphasized for both drugs. Overall patterns of evaluation were generally intermediate and negative. The respondents' profession, mentioning commercial sources of information and self-qualification as a (moderately) early adopter of new drugs differentiated the overall evaluation of the drugs, in contrast to expertness and academic affiliation. The level of prescribing differentiated the overall evaluation only in the case of losartan.

Conclusions: These professional and academic leaders critically evaluated the claims when assessing the position of the drugs in the therapeutic regimen but did not show consensus in their considerations. Accepted principles for prescribing were considered when assessing the therapeutic position of the drugs but resulted in varied tendencies for prescribing.