Intensifying Therapy for Hypertension Despite Suboptimal Adherence
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Specifically, systolic blood pressure fell an average of 2.1 mm Hg in the highest adherence quintile (≥98% adherence) and 2.4 mm Hg in the lowest adherence quintile (<80% adherence; mean, 62%) with each therapeutic intensification.
“Specifically, SBP fell an average of 2.1 mm Hg in the highest adherence quintile (≥98% adherence) and 2.4 mm Hg in the lowest adherence quintile (<80% adherence; mean, 62%) with each therapeutic intensification.”
From Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Evaluation, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2018) · cites this paper as [104]
One analysis found that the systolic blood pressure response to therapeutic intensification for uncontrolled hypertension was not different across quintiles of adherence.
“Although counterintuitive, 1 analysis found that the SBP response to therapeutic intensification for uncontrolled hypertension was not different across quintiles of adherence.104”
From Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Evaluation, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2018) · cites this paper as [104]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 47
- Authors
- Rose, A. J., Berlowitz, D. R., Manze, M., Orner, M. B., & Kressin, N. R.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Venue
- Hypertension
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 524-529
- ISSN
- 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4563
- PMC
- PMC2739677
- OpenAlex
- W2102742125
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Hypertension (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Health Services Research and Development
- School of Medicine, Boston University
- National Institutes of Health
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL072814, HL072814)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
- Keywords
- treatment intensification, medication adherence, blood pressure control, systolic blood pressure, electronic medication monitoring, primary care, inner-city hospital
- MeSH terms
- Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Boston, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Multivariate Analysis, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review