Heather M. Tavel

Incidence and Prognosis of Resistant Hypertension in Hypertensive Patients

Background— Despite a recent American Heart Association (AHA) consensus statement emphasizing the importance of resistant hypertension, the incidence and prognosis of this condition are largely unknown. Methods and Results— This retrospective cohort study in 2 integrated health plans included patients with incident hypertension in whom treatment was begun between 2002 and 2006. Patients were followed up for the development of resistant hypertension based on AHA criteria of uncontrolled blood pressure despite use of ≥3 antihypertensive medications, with data collected on prescription filling information and blood pressure measurement. We determined incident cardiovascular events (death or incident myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) in patients with and without resistant hypertension with adjustment for patient and clinical characteristics. Among 205 750 patients with incident hypertension, 1.9% developed resistant hypertension within a median of 1.5 years from initial treatment (0.7 cases per 100 person-years of follow-up). These patients were more often men, were older, and had higher rates of diabetes mellitus than nonresistant patients. Over 3.8 years of median follow-up, cardiovascular event rates were significantly higher in those with resistant hypertension (unadjusted 18.0% versus 13.5%, P<0.001). After adjustment for patient and clinical characteristics, resistant hypertension was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–1.62). Conclusions— Among patients with incident hypertension in whom treatment was begun, 1 in 50 patients developed resistant hypertension. Patients with resistant hypertension had an increased risk of cardiovascular events, which supports the need for greater efforts toward improving hypertension outcomes in this population.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Are Not Clinically Useful Predictors of Refill Adherence in Patients With Hypertension

Background—Although many studies have identified patient characteristics or chronic diseases associated with medication adherence, the clinical utility of such predictors has rarely been assessed. We attempted to develop clinical prediction rules for adherence with antihypertensive medications in 2 healthcare delivery systems. Methods and Results—We performed retrospective cohort studies of hypertension registries in an inner-city healthcare delivery system (n=17 176) and a health maintenance organization (n=94 297) in Denver, Colo. Adherence was defined by acquisition of 80% or more of antihypertensive medications. A multivariable model in the inner-city system found that adherent patients (36.3% of the total) were more likely than nonadherent patients to be older, white, married, and acculturated in US society, to have diabetes or cerebrovascular disease, not to abuse alcohol or controlled substances, and to be prescribed fewer than 3 antihypertensive medications. Although statistically significant, all multivariate odds ratios were 1.7 or less, and the model did not accurately discriminate adherent from nonadherent patients (C statistic=0.606). In the health maintenance organization, where 72.1% of patients were adherent, significant but weak associations existed between adherence and older age, white race, the lack of alcohol abuse, and fewer antihypertensive medications. The multivariate model again failed to accurately discriminate adherent from nonadherent individuals (C statistic=0.576). Conclusions—Although certain sociodemographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses are statistically associated with adherence to refills of antihypertensive medications, a combination of these characteristics is not sufficiently accurate to allow clinicians to predict whether their patients will be adherent with treatment.

Combination therapy as initial treatment for newly diagnosed hypertension

BACKGROUND The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends that clinicians consider the use of multidrug therapy to increase likelihood of achieving blood pressure goal. Little is known about recent patterns of combination antihypertensive therapy use in patients being initiated on hypertension treatment. METHODS We investigated combination antihypertensive therapy use in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients from the Cardiovascular Research Network Hypertension Registry. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between combination antihypertensive therapy and 12-month blood pressure control. RESULTS Between 2002 and 2007, a total of 161,585 patients met criteria for incident hypertension and were initiated on treatment. During the study period, an increasing proportion of patients were treated initially with combination rather than with single-agent therapy (20.7% in 2002 compared with 35.8% in 2007, P < .001). This increase in combination therapy use was more pronounced in patients with stage 2 hypertension, whose combination therapy use increased from 21.6% in 2002 to 44.5% in 2007. Nearly 90% of initial combination therapy was accounted for by 2 combinations, a thiazide and a potassium-sparing diuretic (47.6%) and a thiazide and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (41.4%). After controlling for relevant clinical factors, including subsequent intensification of treatment and medication adherence, combination therapy was associated with increased odds of blood pressure control at 12 months (odds ratio compared with single-drug initial therapy 1.20; 95% CI 1.15-1.24, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Initial treatment of hypertension with combination therapy is increasingly common and is associated with better long-term blood pressure control.

Trends in Time to Confirmation and Recognition of New-Onset Hypertension, 2002–2006

Achieving full benefits of blood pressure control in populations requires prompt recognition of previously undetected hypertension. In 2003, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure provided definitions of hypertension and recommended that single elevated readings be confirmed within 1 to 2 months. We sought to determine whether the time required to confirm and recognize (ie, diagnose and/or treat) new-onset hypertension decreased from 2002 to 2006 for adult members of 2 large integrated healthcare delivery systems, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Colorado. Using electronically stored office blood pressure readings, physician diagnoses, and pharmacy prescriptions, we identified 200 587 patients with new-onset hypertension (2002-2006) marked by 2 consecutive elevated blood pressure readings in previously undiagnosed, untreated members. Mean confirmation intervals (time from the first to second consecutive elevated reading) declined steadily from 103 to 89 days during this period. For persons recognized within 12 months after confirmation, the mean interval to recognition declined from 78 to 61 days. However, only 33% of individuals were recognized within 12 months. One third were never recognized during observed follow-up. For these patients, most subsequent blood pressure recordings were not elevated. Higher initial blood pressure levels, history of previous cardiovascular disease, and older age were associated with shorter times to recognition. Times to confirmation and recognition of new-onset hypertension have become shorter in recent years, especially for patients with higher cardiovascular disease risk. Variability in office-based blood pressure readings suggests that further improvements in recognition and treatment may be achieved with more specific automated approaches to identifying hypertension.

Blood Pressure Trajectories and Associations With Treatment Intensification, Medication Adherence, and Outcomes Among Newly Diagnosed Coronary Artery Disease Patients

Background— Blood pressure (BP) control among coronary artery disease patients remains suboptimal in clinical practice, potentially due to gaps in treatment intensification and medication adherence. However, longitudinal studies evaluating these relationships and outcomes are limited. Methods and Results— We assessed BP trajectories among health maintenance organization patients with hypertension and incident coronary artery disease. BP trajectories were modeled over the year after coronary artery disease diagnosis, stratified by target BP goal. Treatment intensification (increase in BP therapies in the setting of an elevated BP), medication adherence (percentage of days covered with BP therapies), and outcomes (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization) were evaluated in multivariable models: 9569 patients had a <140/90 mm Hg BP target and 12 861 had a <130/80 mm Hg BP target. Within each group, 4 trajectories were identified: good, borderline, improved, and poor control. After adjustment, increasing BP treatment intensity was significantly associated with better BP trajectories in both groups. Medication adherence had inconsistent effects. There were no significant differences in combined outcomes by BP trajectory, but among the diabetes and renal disease cohort, borderline control patients were less likely to have myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.93), and good control patients were less likely to have myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.84) or a revascularization procedure (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.93) compared with poor control patients. Conclusions— In this health maintenance organization population, treatment intensification but not medication adherence significantly affects BP trajectories in the year after coronary artery disease diagnosis. Better BP trajectories are associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction and revascularization.

Trends in first-line therapy for hypertension in the Cardiovascular Research Network Hypertension Registry, 2002-2007.

S ince publication of the Antihypertensive and LipidLowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) (December 2002) and Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-7) (May 2003) guidelines, thiazide diuretics have been promoted as the preferred initial agents for hypertension treatment, especially among patients without compelling indications for an alternative medication class. A few prior studies demonstrated a slight increase in thiazide use shortly following the publication of these data, but the extent to which thiazides continue to be used as a first-line agent in hypertension treatment in current practice is unclear. The present study assessed time trends in thiazide use as a first-line agent for hypertension treatment from 2002 through 2007 in the Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN) Hypertension Registry. We compared thiazide use vs other classes of antihypertensive agents as the initial medication among patients with incident hypertension and without compelling indications (ie, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure) for another class of medication.

Patterns of Care and Persistence After Incident Elevated Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Screening for hypertension in children occurs during routine care. When blood pressure (BP) is elevated in the hypertensive range, a repeat measurement within 1 to 2 weeks is recommended. The objective was to assess patterns of care after an incident elevated BP, including timing of repeat BP measurement and likelihood of persistently elevated BP. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in 3 health care organizations. All children aged 3 through 17 years with an incident elevated BP at an outpatient visit during 2007 through 2010 were identified. Within this group, we assessed the proportion who had a repeat BP measured within 1 month of their incident elevated BP and the proportion who subsequently met the definition of hypertension. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with follow-up BP within 1 month of initial elevated BP. RESULTS: Among 72 625 children and adolescents in the population, 6108 (8.4%) had an incident elevated BP during the study period. Among 6108 with an incident elevated BP, 20.9% had a repeat BP measured within 1 month. In multivariate analyses, having a follow-up BP within 1 month was not significantly more likely among individuals with obesity or stage 2 systolic elevation. Among 6108 individuals with an incident elevated BP, 84 (1.4%) had a second and third consecutive elevated BP within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas >8% of children and adolescents had an incident elevated BP, the great majority of BPs were not repeated within 1 month. However, relatively few individuals subsequently met the definition of hypertension.

Lipid Screening in Children and Adolescents in Community Practice: 2007 to 2010

Background—Integrated guidelines on cardiovascular health and risk reduction in children issued in 2011 newly recommended universal screening for dyslipidemia in children at 9 to 11 years and 17 to 21 years. Methods and Results—We determined the frequency and results of lipid testing in 301 080 children and adolescents aged 3 to 19 enrolled in 3 large US health systems in 2007 to 2010 before the 2011 guidelines were issued. Overall, 9.8% of the study population was tested for lipids. The proportion tested varied by body mass index percentile (5.9% of normal weight, 10.8% of overweight, and 26.9% of obese children) and age (8.9% of 9- to 11-year olds and 24.3% of 17- to 19-year olds). In normal weight individuals, 2.8% of 9- to 11-year olds and 22.0% of 17- to 19-year olds were tested. In multivariable models, age and body mass index category remained strongly associated with lipid testing. Sex, race, ethnicity, and blood pressure were weakly associated with testing. Abnormal lipid levels were found in 8.6% for total cholesterol, 22.5% for high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, 12.0% for non–high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, 8.0% for low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and 21% for triglycerides (age, 10–19 years). There was a strong and graded association of abnormal lipid levels with body mass index, particularly for high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and triglycerides (2- to 6-fold higher odds ratio in obese when compared with that in normal weight children). Conclusions—Lipid screening was uncommon in 9- to 11-year olds and was performed in a minority of 17- to 19-year olds during 2007 to 2010. These data serve as a benchmark for assessing change in practice patterns after the new recommendations for pediatric lipid screening and management.

Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Versus β-Blockers as Second-Line Therapy for Hypertension

Background—Trials comparing hypertension monotherapies have found either no difference or modest differences in blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular events. However, no trial has assessed the comparative effectiveness of 2nd-line therapy in patients whose BP was not controlled with a thiazide diuretic. Methods and Results—This was an observational study conducted with a hypertension registry of adults enrolled in 3 large integrated health care delivery systems from 2002 to 2007. Patients newly started on thiazide monotherapy whose BP remained uncontrolled were observed after addition of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or &bgr;-blocker for subsequent BP control and cardiovascular events. Patients for whom either add-on drug was indicated or contraindicated were excluded. After adjustment for patient characteristics and study year, BP control during the subsequent 6 to 18 months was comparable for the 2 agents (70.5% ACE, 69.0% &bgr;-blockers; P=0.09). Rates of incident myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.58) and stroke (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.52) were also similar for the ACE inhibitor and &bgr;-blocker groups during an average of 2.3 years of follow-up. There were also no differences in heart failure or renal function. Conclusions—ACE inhibitors and &bgr;-blockers are equally effective in lowering BP and preventing cardiovascular events for patients whose BP is not controlled with a thiazide diuretic alone and who have no compelling indication for a specific 2nd-line agent.

Lipid screening in children and adolescents in community practice

Background—Integrated guidelines on cardiovascular health and risk reduction in children issued in 2011 newly recommended universal screening for dyslipidemia in children at 9 to 11 years and 17 to 21 years. Methods and Results—We determined the frequency and results of lipid testing in 301 080 children and adolescents aged 3 to 19 enrolled in 3 large US health systems in 2007 to 2010 before the 2011 guidelines were issued. Overall, 9.8% of the study population was tested for lipids. The proportion tested varied by body mass index percentile (5.9% of normal weight, 10.8% of overweight, and 26.9% of obese children) and age (8.9% of 9- to 11-year olds and 24.3% of 17- to 19-year olds). In normal weight individuals, 2.8% of 9- to 11-year olds and 22.0% of 17- to 19-year olds were tested. In multivariable models, age and body mass index category remained strongly associated with lipid testing. Sex, race, ethnicity, and blood pressure were weakly associated with testing. Abnormal lipid levels were found in 8.6% for total cholesterol, 22.5% for high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, 12.0% for non–high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, 8.0% for low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and 21% for triglycerides (age, 10–19 years). There was a strong and graded association of abnormal lipid levels with body mass index, particularly for high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and triglycerides (2- to 6-fold higher odds ratio in obese when compared with that in normal weight children). Conclusions—Lipid screening was uncommon in 9- to 11-year olds and was performed in a minority of 17- to 19-year olds during 2007 to 2010. These data serve as a benchmark for assessing change in practice patterns after the new recommendations for pediatric lipid screening and management.