Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp 488–492

Adverse events, compliance, and changes in therapy

  • Rainer Düsing
Article

Abstract

Compliance with medical therapy represents a multifactorial problem with marked consequences for individual and public health. Among the many contributing factors, the choice of drug may also determine the degree of compliance. Various studies investigating either compliance or persistence with antihypertensive therapy using a variety of methods have suggested that adherence to therapy may show the following pattern: diuretics < β-blockers < calcium channel blockers < ACE inhibitors. Furthermore, two recent studies have shown that therapy with angiotensin II receptor blockers may be associated with better long-term adherence than other antihypertensive monotherapies including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Since medication compliance with antihypertensive therapy, among other factors, closely correlates with the experience of side effects, it may be speculated that the different classes of antihypertensives may induce varying degrees of compliance and persistence due to their different tolerability profiles. Side effects may induce variable compliance and nonpersistence by yet another mechanism. Therapy turbulence, ie, any change in medication, is also associated with nonpersistence. Therefore, side effects may directly or indirectly (via inducing therapy turbulence) underly variable compliance and nonpersistence.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Haynes RB: Introduction. In Compliance in Health Care. Edited by: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979:1–7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Düsing R, Lottermoser K, Mengden T: Compliance with drug therapy - new answers to an old question. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001, 16:1317–1321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kass MA, Zimmermann T, Yablonski M: Compliance to pilocarpine therapy [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol 1977, 108:2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Urquhardt J: The electronic medication event monitor. Lessons for pharmacotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997, 32:345–356. Excellent review of electronic medication monitoring the progress this method has brought to the field of compliance research.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Métry J-M: Measuring compliance in clinical trials and ambulatory care. In Drug Regimen Compliance. Issues in Clinical Trials and Patient Management. Edited by: Métry J-M, Meyer UA. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999:1–22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Urquhardt J: Role of patient compliance in clinical pharmacokinetics: review of recent research. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994, 27:202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urquhart J, Chevalley C: Impact of unrecognized dosing errors on the cost and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. Drug Information J 1988, 22:363–378.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feinstein A: On white-coat effects and the electronic monitoring of compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990, 150:1377–1378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cramer JA, Scheyer RD, Mattson RH: Compliance declines between clinic visits. Arch Intern Med 1990, 150:1509–1510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Düsing R, Weisser B, Mengden T, Vetter H: Changes in antihypertensive therapy - the role of adverse effects and compliance. Blood Pres 1998, 7:313–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haynes RB: A critical review of the determinants of patient compliance with therapeutic regimens. In Compliance with Therapeutic Regimens. Edited by: Sackett DL, Haynes RB. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones JK, Gorkin L, Lian JF, et al.: 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caro JJ, Salas M, Speckman JL, et al.: Persistence with treatment for hypertension in actual practice. Can Med Assoc J 1999, 160:31–37.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caro JJ, Speckman JL, Salas M, et al.: Effect of initial drug choice on persistence with antihypertensive therapy. The importance of actual practice data. Can Med Assoc J 1999, 160:41–46. First demonstration that the choice of antihypertensive drug is associated with differences in long-term persistence with therapy. Also, shown in this study is the importance of therapy turbulence.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caro JJ: Stepped care for hypertension: are the assumptions valid? J Hypertens (Suppl) 1977:S35–S39.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caro JJ, Speckman JL: Existing treatment strategies: does noncompliance make a difference. J Hypertens (Suppl) 1998:S31–S34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monane M, Bohn R, Gurwitz JH, et al.: The effects of initial drug choice and comorbidity on antihypertensive therapy compliance: results from a population-based study in the elderly. Am J Hypertens 1997, 10:697–704. First demonstration that the choice of antihypertensive drug is associated with differences in long-term compliance with therapy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bloom BS: Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy. Clin Ther 1998, 20:671–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rizzo JA, Simons WR: Variations in compliance among hypertensive patients by drug class: implications for health care costs. Clin Ther 1997, 19:1447–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Düsing R, Lottermoser K, Mengden T, Vetter H: Compliance with antihypertensive therapy. Comparison of losartan, amlodipine and metoprolol in an open prospective trial. Am J Hypertens 2001, 14:98A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore MA, Edelman JM, Gazdick LP, et al.: Choice of initial antihypertensive medication may influence the extent to which patients stay on therapy: a community-based study of a losartan-based regimen vs. usual care. High Blood Press 1998, 7:1–12.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toyoshima H, Takahashi K, Akera T: The impact of side effects on hypertension management: a Japanese survey. Clin Ther 1997, 19:1424–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Düsing
    • 1
  1. 1.Medizinische Universitäts-PoliklinikBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations