Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp 462–465 | Cite as

The relationship between quality of life and adherence to treatment

  • Maria I. Nunes
Article

Abstract

Hypertension is a preventable condition, and the outcomes of clinical trials have established that its treatment reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although awareness about the disease has improved in the past two decades, the reality is that many people remain untreated or not adequately controlled. The treatment of hypertension is usually long term, and its success will depend on the effects of the drug regimen on the patient’s quality of life. The relationship between quality of life and compliance is complex and merits careful study. Monitoring quality of life may be one of the best ways of improving adherence to treatment. Therefore, when developing an approach to the treatment of hypertension, physicians should take into consideration the impact of different antihypertensives on the patient’s overall well being, and along with the side effects and contraindications, quality-of-life issues may determine the choice of medication.

Keywords

Nifedipine Captopril Atenolol Bisoprolol Cilazapril 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Os I: Quality of life in hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1994, 8(suppl 1):S27-S30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leonetti G, Comerio G, Cuspidi C: Evaluating quality of life in hypertensive patients. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1994, 23(suppl 5):S54-S58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hosie J, Wiklund I: Managing hypertension in general practice: can we do better? J Hum Hypertens 1995, 9:S15-S18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE: Quality of life evaluation of antihypertensive drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 1992, 2:95–102.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE: Quality-of-life instruments in hypertension. Pharmacoeconomics 1994, 6:523–535.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams GH: Assessing patient wellness: new perspectives on quality of life and compliance. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:186S-191S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kittler ME: Elderly hypertensives and quality of life: some methodological considerations. Eur Heart J 1994, 14:113–121.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weber M: Guidelines for assessing outcomes of antihypertensive treatment. Am J Cardiol 1999, 84:2K-4K.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    vanRossum CTM, van de Mheen H, Witteman JCM, et al.: Prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension by sociodemographic factors among the Dutch elderly. Hypertension 2000, 35:814–821. A cross-sectional analysis of subjects in the Rotterdam Study revealed that 25% and 18% of hypertensive men and women, respectively, were not aware of having hypertension.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Server P: The heterogeneity of hypertension: why doesn’t every patient respond to every antihypertensive drug? J Hum Hypertens 1995, 9:S33-S36.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller NH, Hill M, Kottke T, Ockene IS: The multilevel compliance challenge: recommendations for a call to action: a statement for healthcare professionals. Circulation 1997, 95:1085–1090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Testa MA: Methods and applications of quality-of-life measurement during antihypertensive therapy. Curr Hypertens Rep 2000, 2:530–537. According to the author of this study, the assessment of the pharmacologic effects of antihypertensive drugs on the patient’s wellness should focus on elements of health-related quality of life, which affect the patient’s compliance.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groog SH, Levine S, Testa MA, et al.: The effects of antihypertensive therapy on quality of life. N Engl J Med 1986, 314:1657–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fletcher AE, Bulpitt CJ, Chase DM, et al.: Quality of life with three antihypertensive treatments - cilazapril, atenolol, nifedipine. Hypertension 1992, 19:499–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medical Research Council Working Party: MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. BMJ 1985, 291:97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Testa MA, Hollenberg Nk, Anderson RB, et al.: Assessment by patient and spouse during antihypertensive therapy with atenolol and nifedipine GITS. Am J Hypertens 1991, 4:363–373.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE: Quality of life evaluation of antihypertensive drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 1992, 2:95–102.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bulpitt CJ, Connor M, Schulte M, Fletcher AE: Bisoprolol and nifedipine retard in elderly hypertensive patients: effect on quality of life. J Hum Hypertens 2000, 14:205–212. s study compared the effects of the β-blocker bisoprolol versus the calcium channel blocker nifedipine on quality of life. The results of the study support the argument that β-blockers have an additional benefit in reducing tension and anxiety.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vanmolkot, FHM, de Hoon JNJM, van de Ven LLM, Van BortelLMAB: Impact of antihypertensive treatment on quality of life: comparison between bisoprolol and bendrofluazide. J Hum Hypertens 1999, 13:559–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Testa MA, Hollenberg NK, Anderson RB, et al.: Assessment by patient and spouse during antihypertensive therapy with atenolol and nifedipine GITS. Am J Hypertens 1991, 4:363–373.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Testa MA, Anderson RB, Nackley IF, et al.: Quality of life and antihypertensive therapy in men: a comparison of captopril and enalapril. N Engl J Med 1993, 328:907–913.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria I. Nunes
    • 1
  1. 1.Care of the ElderlyImperial College Faculty of MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations