Multiple uncontrolled conditions and blood pressure medication intensification: an observational study

Abstract Background Multiple uncontrolled medical conditions may act as competing demands for clinical decision making. We hypothesized that multiple uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors would decrease blood pressure (BP) medication intensification among uncontrolled hypertensive patients. Methods We observed 946 encounters at two VA primary care clinics from May through August 2006. After each encounter, clinicians recorded BP medication intensification (BP medication was added or titrated). Demographic, clinical, and laboratory information were collected from the medical record. We examined BP medication intensification by presence and control of diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia. 'Uncontrolled' was defined as hemoglobin A1c ≥ for diabetes, BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg (≥ 130/80 mmHg if diabetes present) for hypertension, and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) ≥ 130 mg/dl (≥ 100 mg/dl if diabetes present) for hyperlipidemia. Hierarchical regression models accounted for patient clustering and adjusted medication intensification for age, systolic BP, and number of medications. Results Among 387 patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 51.4% had diabetes (25.3% were uncontrolled) and 73.4% had hyperlipidemia (22.7% were uncontrolled). The BP medication intensification rate was 34.9% overall, but higher in individuals with uncontrolled diabetes and uncontrolled hyperlipidemia: 52.8% overall and 70.6% if systolic BP ≥ 10 mmHg above goal. Intensification rates were lowest if diabetes or hyperlipidemia were controlled, lower than if diabetes or hyperlipidemia were not present. Multivariable adjustment yielded similar results. Conclusions The presence of uncontrolled diabetes and hyperlipidemia was associated with more guideline-concordant hypertension care, particularly if BP was far from goal. Efforts to understand and improve BP medication intensification in patients with controlled diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia are warranted.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78266/1/1748-5908-5-55.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78266/2/1748-5908-5-55.pdfPeer Reviewe

Determinants of medication adherence to antihypertensive medications among a Chinese population using Morisky medication adherence scale

<b>Background and objectives</b> Poor adherence to medications is one of the major public health challenges. Only one-third of the population reported successful control of blood pressure, mostly caused by poor drug adherence. However, there are relatively few reports studying the adherence levels and their associated factors among Chinese patients. This study aimed to study the adherence profiles and the factors associated with antihypertensive drug adherence among Chinese patients.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> A cross-sectional study was conducted in an outpatient clinic located in the New Territories Region of Hong Kong. Adult patients who were currently taking at least one antihypertensive drug were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire, consisting of basic socio-demographic profile, self-perceived health status, and self-reported medication adherence. The outcome measure was the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Good adherence was defined as MMAS scores greater than 6 points (out of a total score of 8 points).<p></p> <b>Results</b> From 1114 patients, 725 (65.1%) had good adherence to antihypertensive agents. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted. Younger age, shorter duration of antihypertensive agents used, job status being employed, and poor or very poor self-perceived health status were negatively associated with drug adherence.<p></p> <b>Conclusion</b> This study reported a high proportion of poor medication adherence among hypertensive subjects. Patients with factors associated with poor adherence should be more closely monitored to optimize their drug taking behavior

Sex-Specific Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the relative effects of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes differ by sex, particularly when BP is not substantially elevated, has been uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant-level data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological BP lowering. We pooled the data and categorized participants by sex, systolic BP categories in 10-mm Hg increments from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg, and age categories spanning from <55 to ≥85 years. We used fixed-effect one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analyses and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included data from 51 randomized controlled trials involving 358 636 (42% women) participants. Over 4.2 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events both in women and men (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.92 [0.89-0.95] for women and 0.90 [0.88-0.93] for men; P for interaction, 1). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of relative treatment effects by sex for the major cardiovascular disease, its components, or across the different baseline BP categories (all P for interaction, ≥0.57). The effects in women and men were consistent across age categories and the types of antihypertensive medications (all P for interaction, ≥0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of BP reduction were similar in women and men across all BP and age categories at randomization and with no evidence to suggest that drug classes had differing effects by sex. This study does not substantiate sex-based differences in BP-lowering treatment

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for prevention of major cardiovascular diseases in people with and without type 2 diabetes: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether the threshold for blood pressure-lowering treatment should differ between people with and without type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by type 2 diabetes status, as well as by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. METHODS: We conducted a one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analysis of major randomised controlled trials using the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration dataset. Trials with information on type 2 diabetes status at baseline were eligible if they compared blood pressure-lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or an intensive versus a standard blood pressure-lowering strategy, and reported at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively on participants with heart failure or with short-term therapies and acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. We expressed treatment effect per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure on the risk of developing a major cardiovascular event as the primary outcome, defined as the first occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke or cerebrovascular disease, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospitalisation. Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) separately by type 2 diabetes status at baseline, with further stratification by baseline categories of systolic blood pressure (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg). To estimate absolute risk reductions, we used a Poisson regression model over the follow-up duration. The effect of each of the five major blood pressure-lowering drug classes, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics, was estimated using a network meta-analysis framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018099283. FINDINGS: We included data from 51 randomised clinical trials published between 1981 and 2014 involving 358 533 participants (58% men), among whom 103 325 (29%) had known type 2 diabetes at baseline. The baseline mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure of those with and without type 2 diabetes was 149/84 mm Hg (SD 19/11) and 153/88 mm Hg (SD 21/12), respectively. Over 4·2 years median follow-up (IQR 3·0-5·0), a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events in both groups, but with a weaker relative treatment effect in participants with type 2 diabetes (HR 0·94 [95% CI 0·91-0·98]) compared with those without type 2 diabetes (0·89 [0·87-0·92]; pinteraction=0·0013). However, absolute risk reductions did not differ substantially between people with and without type 2 diabetes because of the higher absolute cardiovascular risk among participants with type 2 diabetes. We found no reliable evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline systolic blood pressure in either group. In keeping with the primary findings, analysis using stratified network meta-analysis showed no evidence that relative treatment effects differed substantially between participants with type 2 diabetes and those without for any of the drug classes investigated. INTERPRETATION: Although the relative beneficial effects of blood pressure reduction on major cardiovascular events were weaker in participants with type 2 diabetes than in those without, absolute effects were similar. The difference in relative risk reduction was not related to the baseline blood pressure or allocation to different drug classes. Therefore, the adoption of differential blood pressure thresholds, intensities of blood pressure lowering, or drug classes used in people with and without type 2 diabetes is not warranted. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School

The epidemiology and management of severe hypertension

Hypertension guidelines stress that patients with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure (BP)⩾180 or diastolic BP⩾110 mm Hg) require multiple drugs to achieve control and should have close follow-up to prevent adverse outcomes. However, little is known about the epidemiology or actual management of these patients. We retrospectively studied 59 207 veterans with hypertension. Patients were categorized based on their highest average BP over an 18-month period (1 July 1999 to 31 December 2000) as controlled (<140/90 mm Hg), mild (140–159/90–99 mm Hg), moderate (160–179/100–109 mm Hg) and severe hypertension. We examined severe hypertension prevalence, pattern, duration, associated patient characteristics, time to subsequent visit, percentage of visits with a medication increase, and final BP control and antihypertensive medication adequacy. Twenty-three per cent had ⩾1 visit with severe hypertension, 42% of whom had at least two such visits; median day with severe hypertension was 80 (range 1–548). These subjects were significantly older, more likely black, and with more comorbidities than other hypertension subjects. Medication increases occurred at 20% of visits with mild hypertension compared to 40% with severe hypertension; P<0.05). At study end, 76% of patients with severe hypertension remained uncontrolled; severe hypertension subjects with uncontrolled BP were less likely to be on adequate therapy than those with controlled BP (43.7 vs 45.4%). Among hypertensive veterans, severe hypertension episodes are common. Many subjects had relatively prolonged elevations, with older, sicker subjects at highest risk. Although, follow-up times are shorter and antihypertensive medication use greater in severe hypertension subjects, they are still not being managed aggressively enough. Interventions to improve providers' management of these high-risk patients are needed

Determinants of racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure management among hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND: Prior literature has shown that racial/ethnic minorities with hypertension may receive less aggressive treatment for their high blood pressure. However, to date there are few data available regarding the confounders of racial/ethnic disparities in the intensity of hypertension treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 1,205 patients who had a minimum of two hypertension-related outpatient visits to 12 general internal medicine clinics during 7/1/01-6/30/02. Using logistic regression, we determined the odds of having therapy intensified by patient race/ethnicity after adjustment for clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Blacks (81.9%) and Whites (80.3%) were more likely than Latinos (71.5%) to have therapy intensified (P = 0.03). After adjustment for racial differences in the number of outpatient visits and presence of diabetes, there were no racial differences in rates of intensification. CONCLUSION: We found that racial/ethnic differences in therapy intensification were largely accounted for by differences in frequency of clinic visits and in the prevalence of diabetes. Given the higher rates of diabetes and hypertension related mortality among Hispanics in the U.S., future interventions to reduce disparities in cardiovascular outcomes should increase physician awareness of the need to intensify drug therapy more agressively in patients without waiting for multiple clinic visits, and should remind providers to treat hypertension more aggressively among diabetic patients

Long-term efficacy of a combination of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil±hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension stratified by age, race and diabetes status: a substudy of the COACH trial

A prespecified subgroup analysis of a 44-week open-label extension study is presented. The efficacy and safety of the combination of amlodipine (AML)+ olmesartan medoxomil (OM), with and without the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in patients aged ⩾65 and <65 years, Blacks and non-Blacks and patients with and without type 2 diabetes. After an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the study, patients initiated therapy on AML 5+OM 40 mg per day, were uptitrated stepwise to AML 10+OM 40 mg per day, with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg, and 25 mg if blood pressure (BP) goal was not achieved (<140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes). Endpoints included the change from baseline in mean seated systolic BP, mean seated diastolic BP and achievement of BP goal. BP decreased from baseline for all treatments in each prespecified subgroup. By the end of the study, BP goal was achieved in 61.0% of patients aged ⩾65 years, 68.1% of patients aged <65 years, 63.3% of Blacks, 67.8% of non-Blacks, 26.9% of patients with diabetes and 72.9% of patients without diabetes. The combination of AML+OM±HCTZ was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by these subgroups