Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A population-based European cohort study of persistence in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 16, pages 569–575 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

This study assessed the percentage of patients after 1 year who persisted on initially prescribed antihypertensive therapy. Medical records of 2416 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were prescribed initial antihypertensive monotherapy by general practitioners in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom were evaluated. Comparisons were made among the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (AIIRA) irbesartan, all other antihypertensive classes (including AIIRAs other than irbesartan), and the AIIRA losartan. Patients initiated on the AIIRA irbesartan scored highest with a persistence rate of 60.8%, followed by patients who received all other AIIRA agents with a persistence rate of 51.3%. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, and losartan were associated with comparable persistence rates, between 42.0% and 49.7%. Patients who received diuretics scored lowest with a persistence rate of 34.4%. Persistence has emerged as an essential factor for blood pressure control. Prescribing an antihypertensive agent that provides a favourable efficacy and tolerability profile may provide greater persistence with therapy and hence a higher level of blood pressure control.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Trenkwalder P et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in a population over the age of 65 years: results from the Starnberg Study on Epidemiology of Parkinsonism and Hypertension in the Elderly (STEPHY) J Hypertens 1994; 12: 709–716

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chamontin B et al. Prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension in the French population: data from a survey on high blood pressure in general practice, 1994 Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 759–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Joffres MR, Ghadirian P, Fodor JB, Petrasovits A, Chockalingam A, Harnet P . Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in Canada Am J Hypertens 1997; 10: 1097–1102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tormo MJ, Navarro C, Chirlaque MD, Perez-Flores D . Prevalence and control of arterial hypertension in the south-east of Spain: a radical but still insufficient improvement Eur J Epidemiol 1997; 13: 301–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burt VL et al. Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991 Hypertension 1995; 25: 305–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Collins R, MacMahon S . Blood pressure, antihypertensive drug treatment and the risks of stroke and of coronary heart disease Br Med Bull 1994; 50: 272–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Staessen JA et al for the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for olderpatients with isolated systolic hypertension Lancet 1997; 350: 757–764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hansson L et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial Lancet 1999; 353: 611–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39 BMJ 1998; 317: 713–720

  10. Hansson L et al for the HOT Study Group. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin inpatients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial Lancet 1998; 351: 1755–1762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yusuf S et al for the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-riskpatients N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 145–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marques-Vidal P, Tuomilehto J . Hypertension awareness, treatment and control in the community: is the ‘rule of halves’ still valid? J Hum Hypertens 1997; 11: 213–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Colhoun HM, Dong W, Poulter NR . Blood pressure screening, management and control in England: results from the health survey for England 1994 J Hypertens 1998; 16: 747–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones JK, Gorkin L, Lian JF, Staffa JA, Fletcher AP . Discontinuation of and changes in treatment after start of new courses of antihypertensive drugs: a study of a United Kingdom population BMJ 1995; 311: 293–295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2413–2446

  16. Bloom BS . Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy Clin Ther 1998; 2: 671–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mimran A et al. A randomized, double-blind comparison of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist, irbesartan, with the full dose range of enalapril for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12: 203–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Larochelle P et al. Effects and tolerability of irbesartan versus enalapril inpatients with severe hypertension Am J Cardiol 1997; 80: 1613–1615

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stumpe KO et al. Comparison of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist irbesartan with atenolol for treatment of hypertension Blood Press 1998; 7: 31–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lacourcière Y et al. A comparison of the efficacies and duration of action of the angiotensin II receptor blockers telmisartan and amlodipine Blood Press Monit 1998; 3: 295–302

    Google Scholar 

  21. Oparil S et al. Efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of losartan, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, versus amlodipine, alone or with hydro-chlorothiazide, inpatients with essential hypertension Clin Ther 1996; 18: 608–625

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pylypchuk GB . ACE inhibitor-versus angiotensin II blocker-induced cough and angioedema Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32: 1060–1066

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kassler-Taub K et al. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 445–453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oparil S et al for the Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan Clin Ther 1998; 20: 398–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawrenson RA, Coles G, Walton K, Farmer RDT . Characteristics of practices contributing to the MediPlus database and the implications for its use in epidemiological research J Informatics in Primary Care 1998; 2: 14–18

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rathmann W . Data Safety and Drug Safety in Germany: a closing gap? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe 2001; 10: 625–630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dietlein G, Schröder-Bernhardi D . Use of medipluspatient database in healthcare research Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 40: 130–133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mancia G et al. Irbesartan results in superior blood pressure reduction vs valsartan Am J Hypertens 2000; 13: 151A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rizzo JA, Simons WR . Variations in compliance among hypertensivepatients by drug class: implications for health care costs Clin Ther 1997; 19: 1446–1457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Orav EJ, Laird NM . Performance of generalized estimating equations in practical situations Biometrics 1994; 50: 270–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Erdine S . How well is hypertension controlled in Europe? J Hypertens 2000; 18: 1348–1349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Caro JJ et al. Persistence with treatment for hypertension in actual practice CMAJ 1999; 160: 31–37

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Caro JJ et al. Effect of initial drug choice on persistence with antihypertensive therapy: the importance of actual practice data CMAJ 1999; 160: 41–46

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Chaput AJ . Persistency with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) versus other antihypertensives (AHT) using the Saskatchewan database Can J Cardiol 2000; 16 (Suppl F): 194F

    Google Scholar 

  36. Benson S, Vance-Bryan K, Radatz J . Time topatient discontinuation of antihypertensive drugs in different classes Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57: 51–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dusing R, Weisser B, Mengden T, Vetter H . Changes in antihypertensive therapy – the role of adverse effects and compliance Blood Press 1998; 7: 313–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Aranda P et al. Use and adverse reactions of antihypertensive drugs in Spain Blood Press Suppl 1997; 1: 11–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Elliott W . Adverse clinical sequelae after dropping out of a tertiary hypertension clinic J Hypertens 2000; 18 (Suppl 4): S169

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been funded by Sanofi-Synthelabo and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    J Hasford

  2. CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    A Mimran

  3. Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Inc, Short Hills, NJ, USA

    W R Simons

Authors
  1. J Hasford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Mimran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W R Simons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Hasford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hasford, J., Mimran, A. & Simons, W. A population-based European cohort study of persistence in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens 16, 569–575 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001451

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001451

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links