This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement All Versions of this Article: 54/3/524    most recent HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.133389v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Rose, A. J. Articles by Kressin, N. R. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rose, A. J. Articles by Kressin, N. R. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Blood Pressure Medicines High Blood Pressure Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Clinical Studies

(Hypertension. 2009;54:524.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Articles

Intensifying Therapy for Hypertension Despite Suboptimal Adherence

Adam J. Rose; Dan R. Berlowitz; Meredith Manze; Michelle B. Orner; Nancy R. Kressin

From the Center for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research (A.J.R., D.R.B., M.B.O., N.R.K.), Bedford VA Medical Center; the Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine (A.J.R., D.R.B., M.M., N.R.K.), Boston University School of Medicine; the Department of Health Policy and Management (D.R.B., M.M.), Boston University School of Public Health; and the VA Boston Healthcare System (N.R.K.), Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Adam J. Rose, MD, MSc, Center for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research, 200 Springs Road, Building #70, Bedford, MA 01730. E-mail adamrose{at}bu.edu

More intensive management can improve control blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients. However, many would posit that treatment intensification (TI) is not beneficial in the face of suboptimal adherence. We investigated whether the effect of TI on BP varies by adherence. We enrolled 819 patients with hypertension, managed in primary care at an academically-affiliated inner-city hospital. We used the following formula to characterize TI: (visits with a medication change–visits with elevated BP)/total visits. Adherence was characterized using electronic monitoring devices ("MEMS caps"). Patients who returned their MEMS caps (671) were divided into quartiles of adherence, whereas patients who did not return their MEMS caps (148) had "missing" adherence. We examined the relationship between TI and the final systolic blood pressure (SBP), controlling for patient-level covariates. In the entire sample, each additional therapy increase per 10 visits predicted a 2.0 mm Hg decrease in final SBP (P<0.001). After stratifying by adherence, in the "best" adherence quartile each therapy increase predicted a 2.1-mm Hg decrease in final SBP, followed by 1.8 for the "next-best" adherence quartile, 2.3 in the third quartile, and 2.4 in the "worst" adherence quartile. The effect size for patients with "missing" adherence was 1.6 mm Hg. The differences between the group with "best" adherence and the other 4 groups were not statistically significant. In this observational study, treatment intensification was associated with similar BP improvement regardless of the patient’s level of adherence. A randomized trial could further examine optimal management of patients with suboptimal adherence.

Key Words: hypertension • adherence • medication therapy management • quality of care • ambulatory care