Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Compliance and persistence with newer antihypertensive agents

  • Published:
Current Hypertension Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individuals with hypertension need to stay on therapy with antihypertensive medication to obtain the full benefits of blood pressure reduction. There are important differences in tolerability across antihypertensive drug classes, and these differences influence the extent to which patients are willing to continue taking their drugs. Three separate sources of evidence—postmarket surveillance studies, medical/prescription database studies, and discontinuation of study medication in long-term endpoint clinical trials—support the proposition that angiotensin II antagonists, the newest class of antihypertensives, are well tolerated, and that patients whose initial treatment is an angiotensin II antagonist are more likely to persist with therapy than patients who use other classes of antihypertensives. Recent landmark trials with losartan in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction [LIFE]) and in diabetes (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan [RENAAL]) demonstrated excellent tolerability, a high level of persistence, and clinical benefits exceeding those provided by blood pressure control alone for the prototype angiotensin II antagonist in clinical settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. American Heart Association: 2002 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update. Dallas: American Heart Association; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hodgson TA, Cai L: Medical care expenditures for hypertension, its complications, and its comorbidities. Med Care 2001, 39:599–615.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Joffres MR, Hamet P, MacLean DR, et al.: Distribution of blood pressure and hypertension in Canada and the United States. Am J Hypertens 2001, 14:1099–1105.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Marques-Vidal P, Ruidavets J-B, Cambou J-P, et al.: Trends in hypertension prevalence and management in Southwestern France, 1985–1996. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:1230–1235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Banegas JR, Rodríguez-Artalejo F, José de la Cruz Troca J, et al.: Blood pressure in Spain: Distribution, awareness, control, and benefits of a reduction in average pressure. Hypertension 1998, 32:998–1002.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 1997, 157:2413–2466.

  7. Guidelines Subcommittee: 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens 1999, 17:151–183.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Payne KA, Esmonde-White S: Observational studies of antihypertensive medication use and compliance: is drug choice a factor in treatment adherence? Curr Hypertens Rep 2000, 2:515–524. This is a very thorough review of the historical literature on factors contributing to antihypertensive medication compliance, and on results of observational studies on adherence to therapy.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Gibson FS, et al.: Randomized clinical trial of strategies for improving medication compliance in primary hypertension. Lancet 1975, 1:1205–1207.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Iskedjian M, Einarson TR, MacKeigan LD, et al.: Relationship between daily dosing frequency and adherence to antihypertensive pharmacotherapy: evidence from a meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2002, 24:302–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choo PW, Rand CS, Inui TS, et al.: Validation of patient records, automated pharmacy records and pill counts with electronic monitoring of adherence to antihypertensive therapy. Med Care 1999, 37:846–857.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Coons SJ: Medication compliance: the search for answers continue [editorial]. Clin Ther 2001, 23:1294–1295.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Düsing R: Adverse events, compliance, and changes in therapy. Curr Hypertens Rep 2001, 3:488–492.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klungel OH, Stricker BHC, Paes AHP, et al.: Excess stroke among hypertensive men and women attributable to undertreatment of hypertension. Stroke 1999, 30:1312–1318.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McCombs JS, Nichol MB, Newman CM, Schlar DA: The costs of interrupting antihypertensive drug therapy in a Medicaid population. Med Care 1994, 32:214–226.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mar J, Rodriques-Artalejo F: Which is more important for the efficiency of hypertension treatment: hypertension stage, type of drug or therapeutic compliance? J Hypertens 2001, 19:149–155.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hughes D, McGuire A: The direct costs to the NHS of discontinuing and switching prescriptions for hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1998, 12:533–537.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson EC, Stason WB, Neutra RB, Solomon HS: Identification of the noncompliant hypertensive patient. Preventive Med 1980, 9:504–517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lip GYH, Beevers DG: A survey of the current practice of treating hypertension in primary care: The rational evaluation and choice in hypertension (REACH) study. J Drug Devel Clin Pract 1996, 8:161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bloom BS: Daily regimen and compliance with treatment [editorial]. BMJ 2001, 323:647.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Borrild NJ: Patients’ experiences of antihypertensive drugs in routine use: Results of a Danish general practice survey. Blood Press 1997, 6(Suppl 1):23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goldberg AI, Dunlay MC, Sweet CS: Safety and tolerability of losartan potassium, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, compared with hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, felodipine ER, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for the treatment of systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1995, 75:793–795.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Moore MA, Edelman JM, Gadick LF, et al.: Choice of initial antihypertensive medication may influence the extent to which patients stay on therapy: a community based study of a losartan-based regimen vs. usual care. High Blood Press 1998, 7:156–167.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Grégoire J-P, Moisan J, Guibert R, et al.: Tolerability of antihypertensive drugs in a community-based setting. Clin Ther 2001, 23:715–726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones JK, Gorkin L, Lian JF, et al.: Discontinuation of and changes in treatment after start of new course of antihypertensive drugs: a study of a United Kingdom population. BMJ 1995, 311:293–295.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH, et al.: Compliance with antihypertensive therapy among elderly Medicaid enrollees: The roles of age, gender, and race. Am J Public Health 1996, 86:1805–1808.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH, et al.: The effects of initial drug choice and comorbidity on antihypertensive compliance: results from a population-based study in the elderly. Am J Hypertens 1997, 10:697–704.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rizzo JA, Simons RW: Variations in compliance among hypertensive patients by drug class: implications for health care costs. Clin Ther 1997, 19:1446–1457.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Okano GJ, Rascati KL, Wilson JP, et al.: Patterns of antihypertensive use among patients in the US Department of Defense database initially prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker. Clin Ther 1997, 19:1433–1445.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Caro JJ, Speckman JL, Salas M, et al.: Effect of initial drug choice on persistence with antihypertensive therapy: the importance of actual practice data. Can Med Assoc J 1999, 160:41–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Caro JJ: Stepped care for hypertension: are the assumptions valid? J Hypertens 1997, 15(Suppl 7):S35-S39.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mann RD, Mackay F, Pearce G, et al.: Losartan: a study of pharmacovigilence data on 14,522 patients. J Hum Hypertens 1999, 13:551–557.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bloom BS: Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy. Clin Ther 1998, 20:1–11. The first published study (to include an angiotensin II antagonist) on persistence patterns with antihyptertensive medication classes.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Conlin PR, Gerth WC, Fox J, et al.: Four-year persistence patterns among patients initiating therapy with the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan versus other antihypertensive drug classes. Clin Ther 2001, 23:1999–2010. This publication is the first to report on persistence patterns over 4 years in patients initiating therapy with the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan. The percentage of patients staying on angiotensin II antagonist therapy from 12 months to 48 months was statistically greater (P< 0.001) than the percentage of patients receiving initial therapy with other antihypertensives.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Benson S, Vance-Bryan K, Raddatz J: Time to patient discontinuation of antihypertensive drugs in difference classes. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000, 57:51–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Caro JJ, Salas J, Speckman JL, et al.: Persistence with treatment in hypertension in actual practice. Can Med Assoc J 1999, 160:31–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Conlin PR, Fox J, Gerth WC, et al.: Losartan/angiotensin II antagonists have greater persistence than other antihypertensive agents/classes [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 2002, 15(Part 2):29A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pham HT, Gause D, Frech FH: Discontinuation, switching and adding among antihypertensive drug classes [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 2001, 14:(Part 2):112A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wogen J, Krejilick CA, Livornese RC, et al.: A population-based study of compliance and persistency with cardiovascular agents used in hypertension management [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 2001, 14(Part 2):112A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wannemacher AJ, Schepers GP, Townsend KA: Antihypertensive medication compliance in a veterans affairs healthcare system. Ann Pharmacother 2002, 36:986–991.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Marentette MA, Gerth WC, Billings DK, Zarnke KB: Antihypertensive persistence and drug class. Can J Cardiol 2002, 18:649–656.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Chaput AJ: Persistency with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) versus other antihypertensives (AHT) using the Saskatchewan Database [abstract]. Can J Cardiol 2000, 16(Suppl F):194F.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Degli Esposti E, Sturani A, Degli Esposti L, et al.: Pharmacoutilization of antihypertensive drugs: a model of analysis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001, 39:251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Degli Esposti E, Sturani A, DiMartino M: Long-term persistence with antihypertensive drugs in new patients. J Hypertens 2002, 16:439–444.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hasford J, Mimran A, Simons WR: A population-based European cohort study of persistence in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens 2002, 16:569–575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mackay FJ, Pearce GL, Mann RD: Cough and angiotensin II inhibitors: cause or confounding? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998, 46:111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialist’ Collaboration: Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Lancet 2000, 355:1955–1964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, et al.: Randomized trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE). Lancet 1997, 349:747–752.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, et al.: Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomized trial - the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet 2000, 355:1582–1587.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Dahlóf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al.: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomized trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002, 359:995–1003. The LIFE trial demonstrated a statistically significant 13% reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality clinical endpoints with losartan compared with atenolol. The benefits observed did not appreciably change after adjustment in main outcome for changes in systolic, diastolic, or mean artrial pressure. This study is the first active treatment controlled study in hypertension in which one antihypertensive agent (angiotensin II antagonist, losartan) was superior to an other established antihypertensive agent (β-blocker, atenolol). Discontinuation as a result of all adverse events, drug-related adverse events, and serious drug-related adverse events was significantly less common in losartan-than in atenolol-treated patients.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, De Zeeuw D, et al.: Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:861–869. In type 2 diabetics with nephropathy, losartan significantly reduced the incidence of doubling of serum creatinine and end-stage renal disease, but had no effect on the rate of death compared with placebo. The benefits observed exceeded those attributable to blood pressure. Both treatment groups received study medication in addition to conventional antihypertensive treatment (calcium channel antagonists, diuretics, α-blockers, β-blockers, and centrally acting agents). More patients discontinued the study treatment in the placebo group (53.5%) than in the losartan group (46.5%).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Worldwide Human Health Outcomes Research, Merck & Co., Inc., One Merck Drive, WS2E-65, PO Box 100, 08889-0100, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA

    William C. Gerth MBA

Authors
  1. William C. Gerth MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerth, W.C. Compliance and persistence with newer antihypertensive agents. Current Science Inc 4, 424–433 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-002-0021-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-002-0021-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation