Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 6, pp 495–501 | Cite as

Unmet needs in hypertension: Challenges and opportunities

  • Joseph D. Jackson
  • Patrick Merat


On the verge of the new millennium, hypertension remains an area of significant unmet medical need. Although progress has been made in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension during the last half of the 20th century, recent trends suggest that progress has stalled. Unfavorable trends in awareness and control have been noted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic, in a community that is socioeconomically prosperous with easy access to primary and tertiary medical care [1••]. Evidence suggests that a renewed focus on systolic blood pressure and on efforts to maintain compliance will result in better outcomes in populations at risk. Hiatt and Goldman [2] have presented the case for “making medicine more scientific”—that is, understanding howthe application of medical care advances can best be applied to benefi population health status. This is the challenge that hypertension control presents in world populations. Aging societies make this challenge an urgent concern


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Meissner I, Whisnant JP, Sheps SG, et al.: Detection and control of high blood pressure in the community: Do we need a wake up call? Hypertension 1999, 34:466–471. Meissner et al. have highlighted a disturbing trend in the war against hypertension. From 1986 to 1996, they found that trends of awareness, treatment, and control changed direction from positive to negative. Further research on the causes of these trends is indicated.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hiatt H, Goldman L: Making medicine more scientific [editorial]. Nature 1994, 371:100. Hiatt and Goldman remind us that Outcomes Research techniques are important to translate experimental findings into real world gains in health status.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murray CJL, Lopez AD: Evidence-based health policy—lessons from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Science 1996, 274:740–743.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murray CJL, Lopez AD: Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997, 349:1269–1276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murray CJL, Lopez AD: Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997, 349:1498–1504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murray CJL, Lopez AD: Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factor: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997, 349:1436–1442. The entire series concerning the Global Burden of Disease project is worthwhile. This particular article notes the role of hypertension as a modifiable risk factor across the globe.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guidelines Subcommittee: 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension. J Hypertens 1999, 17:151–183. The most recent international hypertension guidelines serve to underscore progress and challenges in hypertension management.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-VI). Arch Intern Med 1997, 157:2413–2446. The most recent US hypertension guidelines serve to underscore progress and challenges in hypertension management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zanchetti A: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure evaluation of antihypertensive agents. J Hypertens 1995, 13(suppl 2):119–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alli C, Avanzini F, Giueseppe B, et al.: The long term prognostic significance of repeated blood pressure measurements in the elderly, Studio sulla Pressione Arteriosa nell’Anziano 10 year follow up. Arch Intern Med 1999, 159:1205–1212. Alli et al. reinforces the relationship of systolic blood pressure levels to mortality rates.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Donnell CJ, Kannel WB: Cardiovascular risks of hypertension: lessons from observational studies. J Hypertens 1998, 16(suppl 6):3–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Staessen JA, Thijs L, Gasowski J, et al.: Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: further evidence from the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial. Am J Cardiol 1998, 82:20R-22R.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell GF, Moye LA, Braunwald E, et al.: Sphygmomanometrically determined pulse pressure is a powerful independent predictor of recurrent events after myocardial infarction in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Circulation 1997, 96:4254–4260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benetos A, Safar M, Rudnichi A, et al.: Pulse pressure: a predictor of long-term cardiovascular mortality in a French male population. Hypertension 1997, 30:1410–1415.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franklin SS, Khan SA, Wong ND, et al.: Is pulse pressure more important than systolic blood pressure in predicting coronary heart disease events? The Framingham Heart Study [abstract]. Circulation 1998, 98(suppl I):324. The work of Franklin, Khan, Wong, et al. is helping us understand the importance of systolic blood pressure as a risk factor.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fang J, Madhaven S, Cohen H, Alderman MH: Measures of blood pressure and myocardial infarction in treated hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 1995, 13:413–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lapuerta P, L’Italien GJ: Awareness, treatment and control of systolic blood pressure in the United States [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 1999, 12:92A. The work of Lapuerta and L’Italien is helping us understand the importance of systolic blood pressure as a risk factor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Curb JD, Aluli NE, Huang BJ, et al.: Hypertension in elderly Japanese Americans and adult native Hawaiians. Public Health Rep 1996, 111(suppl 2):53–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neaton JD, Wentworth D, for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group: Serum cholesterol, blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and death from coronary heart disease: overall findings and differences by age for 316,099 white men. Arch Intern Med 1992, 152:56–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elliott WJ: Which blood pressure measurement is more important in the elderly? Arch Intern Med 1999, 159:1165–1166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franklin SS: Is pulse pressure useful in predicting risk for coronary heart disease? Circulation 1999,100:354–360.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al.: Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:1957–1963. Berlowitz et al. have rigorously approached the issue of hypertension management. The use of recursive partitioning to analyze changes in therapy is noteworthy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, et al.: Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease II: short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomized drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990, 335:827–838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mulrow CD, Cornell JA, Herrera CR, et al.: Hypertension in the elderly: implications and generalizability of randomize trials. JAMA 1994, 272:1932–1938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Staessen JA, Thijs L, Birkenhager WH, et al.: Update on the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial. Hypertension 1999, 33:1476–1477.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Black HR: The paradigm has shifted, to systolic blood pressure. Hypertension 1999, 34:1–2. Black extends the arguments to the focus on systolic blood pressure. He calls for the paradigm to shift from diastolic to systolic to achieve meaningful gains in outcomes.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cushman WC: The clinical significance of systolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:S182-S185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tobian L, Brunner HR, Cohn JN, et al.: A group of experts convened by the President of the American Society of Hypertension to express their individual opinions. Am J Hypertens 1994, 7:859–872.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al.: Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population. Hypertension 1995, 25:305–313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenblatt RA, Cherkin DC, Schneeweiss R, Hart LG: The content of ambulatory medical care in the United States: an interspecialty comparison. N Engl J Med 1983, 309:892–897.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marques-Vidal P: Sex differences in awareness and control of hypertension in France. J Hypertens 1997, 15:1205–1210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Faulhaber HD: Treatment of high blood pressure in Germany. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:750–753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stamler J: Blood pressure and high blood pressure. Hypertension 1991, 18(suppl 3):95–107.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rogers PG, Bullman WR: Prescription medicine compliance: a review of the baseline knowledge: a report of the National Council on Patient Information and Education. J Pharmacoepidemiol 1995, 2:3–36.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sackett DL, Haynes RB, eds.: Compliance with Therapeutic Regimens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Haynes RB, Gibson ES, Taylor W, et al.: Process versus outcome in hypertension: a positive result. Circulation 1982, 65:28–33. This 1982 article is worth revisiting. Like Donabedian, they argue that process issues are important to outcomes. Therapeutic vigor (intensifying therapy and encouraging compliance) promotes favorable outcomes.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SHEP Cooperative Research Group: Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991, 265:3255–3264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al.: Effects o intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial. Lancet 1998, 351:1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roter DL, Hall JA, Merisca R, et al.: Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance. Med Care 1998, 36:1138–1161. Roter et al. make the case for multifaceted approaches to the challenge of patient compliance. They also observe that small gains are economically and clinically meaningful.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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
  42. 42.
    Caro JJ, Speckman JL, Salas M, et al.: Effect of initial drug choice on persistence with anti-hypertensive therapy: the importance of actual practice data. Can Med Assoc J 1999, 160:41–46. Caro et al. demonstrate that real world gains in hypertension ma not accord with evidence from clinical trials. They also suggest that drug class matters.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH, et al.: The effects of initial drug choice and comorbidity in antihypertensive therapy compliance. Am J Hypertens 1997, 10:697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bloom BS: Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy. Clin Ther 1998, 20:671–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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. BJM 1995, 311:293–295.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stockwell DH, Madhaven S, Cohen H, et al.: The determination of hypertension awareness, treatment and control in an insured population. Am J Public Health 1994, 84:1768–1774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McCombs JS, Nichol MB, Newman CM, Sclar DA: The costs of interrupting antihypertensive drug therapy in a Medicaid population. Med Care 1994, 32:214–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph D. Jackson
    • 1
  • Patrick Merat
    • 2
  1. 1.Bristol-Myers SquibbPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Bristol-Myers SquibbPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations