Cited by 42Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesClinical practice guidelines implementationSodium Intake and Health

Physician (investigator) inertia in apparent treatment-resistant hypertension – Insights from large randomized clinical trials. Lennart Hansson Memorial Lecture

Open access
Kjeldsen, Sverre E., Julius, Stevo, Dahlöf, Björn, Weber, Michael A.·2015·Blood Pressure

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of resistant hypertension has attained much attention during the past few years and naturally so has the prevalence of resistant hypertension. In the search for sources of such documentation, the lack of blood pressure (BP) control in randomized clinical outcome trials in hypertension has been used as indication of treatment-resistant hypertension. In the present study, we aimed at using previously unpublished information from monitoring of clinical trials in investigating the mechanism explaining why large fractions of patients in the trials remained uncontrolled for their high BP. METHODS: We report insight information from LIFE (n = 9193), VALUE (n = 15,245), ASCOT (n = 19,257) and ACCOMPLISH (n = 11,506). Data stored during the course of the trials for monitoring purposes were scrutinized for fractions of patients with BP control, which was BP < 140/90 mmHg in all trials, and we identified monitoring data showing fractions of patients who had been uptitrated to the various dosing levels or combinations of study drugs in the trials. Fractions of patients who had not been uptitrated on drugs and who remained without BP control identified the level of physician (investigator) inertia in these trials. RESULTS: In the LIFE Study the majority of patients remained with systolic BP > 140 mmHg throughout. Approximately 1500 patients remained on the first dose titration step despite not having reached target BP. In the VALUE Trial 59.5% had reached systolic BP target 2 years into the study; 23.9% of patients remained on the lowest study dose and only 15.1% had been uptitrated to the highest study dose. In the ASCOT Trial, as many as 28% of participants had not reached target diastolic BP at year 4 in the study, and of these patients 37% still remained on the first drug dose titration step. In the ACCOMPLISH Trial approximately 80% had achieved the systolic BP target at study end; however, during the course of the trial approximately 25% of participants remained uncontrolled and at 6 months almost 60% of these patients had not been titrated to the highest drug dose level. CONCLUSION: These data, taken from the monitoring phases of large outcome trials in hypertension, show that inertia, the lack of titration of study drugs to higher dosing levels or drug combinations according to the study protocols, is a major cause of not reaching BP targets in the trials. Thus, fractions of patients not reaching BP targets in outcome trials cannot be taken as evidence of treatment-resistant hypertension.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/08037051.2014.946787

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Julius S , Kjeldsen SE , Weber M , Brunner H , Ekman S , 4. Hansson L et al . Cardiac events, stroke and mortality in high- risk hypertensives treated with valsartan or amlodipine: Main outcomes of The VALUE Trial . Lancet. 2004 ; 363 : 2022 -31 .
  2. Modolo R , Faria APD , Sabbatini AR , Moreno H . Resistant 16. hypertension revisited: Defi nition and true prevalence . J Hypertens. 2014 ; 32 : 1546 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kjeldsen, S. E., Julius, S., Dahlöf, B., & Weber, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
  • SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University (US)
Corresponding author
Kjeldsen, Sverre E.
Venue
Blood Pressure
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
1-6
ISSN
  • 0803-7051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-1999
OpenAlex
W2082237858
Cited by
41
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Blood Pressure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
Keywords
resistant hypertension, blood pressure control, treatment-resistant hypertension, LIFE trial, VALUE trial, ASCOT trial, ACCOMPLISH trial, combination antihypertensive therapy, antihypertensive medication adherence
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Physicians, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory

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