Exploring factors associated with patients' adherence to antihypertensive drugs among people with primary hypertension in the United Kingdom

Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy and Its Determinants: A Systematic Review

Hypertension is a globally prevalent condition, and low adherence to antihypertensive therapy is considered one of the main causes of poor blood pressure (BP) control. Non-adherence to antihypertensive treatment is a complex issue that can arise from various factors; however, gaining an understanding of this provides key targets for intervention strategies. This study aimed to provide an overview of the current status and recent developments regarding our understanding of the determinants of patients' adherence to antihypertensives. A systematic review was performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and "Índex das Revistas Médicas Portuguesas", which included studies published between 2017 and 2021 following the PICOS model: (P) Adult patients with the diagnosis of primary hypertension, using at least one antihypertensive agent; (I) all interventions on both pharmacological and non-pharmacological level; (C) patient's adherence against their non-adherence; (O) changes in adherence to the therapeutic plan; and (S) any study design (except review articles) written in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese. Articles were reviewed by two researchers and their quality was assessed. Subsequently, determinants were classified according to their consistent or inconsistent association with adherence or non-adherence. Only 45 of the 635 reports identified met the inclusion criteria. Adherence was consistently associated with patient satisfaction with communication, patient-provider relationship, their treatment, and use of eHealth and mHealth strategies; a patient's mental and physical health, including depression, cognitive impairment, frailty, and disability, previous hospitalization, occurrence of vital events; drug treatment type and appearance; and unwillingness due to health literacy, self-efficacy, and both implicit and explicit attitudes towards treatment. There were discrepancies regarding the association of other factors to adherence, but these inconsistent factors should also be taken into account. In conclusion, the barriers to adherence are varied and often interconnected between socioeconomic, patient, therapy, condition, and healthcare system levels. Healthcare teams should invest in studying patients' non-adherence motives and tailoring interventions to individual levels, by using a multifaceted approach to assess adherence. Further research is needed to analyze the impact of implicit attitudes, the use of new technological approaches, and the influence of factors that are inconsistently associated with non-adherence, to understand their potential in implementing adherence strategies.

A Motivational Interviewing Intervention to Improve Adherence to ACEIs/ARBs among Nonadherent Older Adults with Comorbid Hypertension and Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Hypertension and diabetes mellitus are independent risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Due to the cardioprotective nature of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), they are recommended for patients with comorbid hypertension and diabetes. However, poor adherence to ACEIs/ARBs among older adults is a major public health concern. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a telephonic motivational interviewing (MI) intervention conducted by pharmacy students among a nonadherent older population (≥ 65 years old) with diabetes and hypertension.

METHODS

Patients continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan who received an ACEI/ARB prescription between July 2017 and December 2017 were identified. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) was used to identify distinct patterns of ACEI/ARB adherence during the 1-year baseline period: adherent, gaps in adherence, gradual decline, and rapid decline in adherence. Patients from the three nonadherent trajectories were randomized into MI intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of an initial call and five follow-up calls administered by MI-trained pharmacy students and tailored to the baseline ACEI/ARB adherence trajectories. The primary outcome was adherence to ACEI/ARB during the 6- and 12-month periods post-MI implementation. The secondary outcome was discontinuation, defined as no refills for ACEI/ARB during the 6- and 12-month periods post-MI implementation. Multivariable regression analyses examined the impact of MI intervention on ACEI/ARB adherence and discontinuation while adjusting for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients in the intervention group and 480 patients as randomly selected controls were included in this study. At 6 months, patients receiving the MI intervention had significantly better adherence (β = 0.06; p = 0.03) compared with the controls. Linear and logistic regression models also showed patients in the intervention group were more likely to be adherent than controls within 12 months of intervention implementation (β = 0.06; p = 0.02 and OR: 1.46; 95% CI 1.05-2.04, respectively). MI intervention did not have any significant impact on the ACEI/ARB discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Patients who received the MI intervention were more likely to be adherent at 6 and 12 months following the intervention initiation, despite gaps in the follow-up calls due to COVID-19. Pharmacist-led MI intervention is an effective behavioral strategy to improve medication adherence among older adults and tailoring the intervention to past adherence patterns may enhance the intervention effectiveness. This study was registered with the United States National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03985098).

What affected UK adults' adherence to medicines during the COVID-19 pandemic? Cross-sectional survey in a representative sample of people with long-term conditions

Aim

Medicines non-adherence is associated with poorer outcomes and higher costs. COVID-19 affected access to healthcare, with increased reliance on remote methods, including medicines supply. This study aimed to identify what affected people's adherence to medicines for long-term conditions (LTCs) during the pandemic.

Subject and methods

Cross-sectional online survey of UK adults prescribed medicines for LTCs assessing self-reported medicines adherence, reasons for non-adherence (using the capability, opportunity and motivation model of behaviour [COM-B]), medicines access and COVID-19-related behaviours.

Results

The 1746 respondents reported a mean (SD) of 2.5 (1.9) LTCs, for which they were taking 2.4 (1.9) prescribed medicines, 525 (30.1%) reported using digital tools to support ordering or taking medicines and 22.6% reported medicines non-adherence. No access to at least one medicine was reported by 182 (10.4%) respondents; 1048 (60.0%) reported taking at least one non-prescription medicine as a substitute; 409 (23.4%) requested emergency supply from pharmacy for at least one medicine. Problems accessing medicines, being younger, male, in the highest socioeconomic group and working were linked to poorer adherence. Access problems were mostly directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were generally lacking in capabilities and opportunities, but disruptions to habits (automatic motivation) was the major reason for non-adherence.

Conclusion

Navigating changes in how medicines were accessed, and disruption of habits during the COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with suboptimal adherence. People were resourceful in overcoming barriers to access. Solutions to support medicines-taking need to take account of the multiple ways that medicines are prescribed and supplied remotely.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01813-0.

Treatment and prescribing trends of antihypertensive drugs in 2.7 million UK primary care patients over 31 years: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the prescribing trends of antihypertensive drugs in primary care patients and assess the trajectory of antihypertensive drug prescriptions, from first-line to third-line, in patients with hypertension according to changes to the United Kingdom (UK) hypertension management guidelines.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We used the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, an electronic primary care database representative of the UK population. Between 1988 and 2018, we identified all adult patients with at least one prescription for a thiazide diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker (CCB).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We estimated the period prevalence of patients with antihypertensive drug prescriptions for each calendar year over a 31-year period. Treatment trajectory was assessed by identifying patients with hypertension newly initiating an antihypertensive drug, and treatment changes were defined by a switch or add-on of a new class. This cohort was stratified before and after 2007, the year following important changes to UK hypertension management guidelines.

RESULTS

The cohort included 2 709 241 patients. The prevalence of primary care patients with antihypertensive drug prescriptions increased from 7.8% (1988) to 21.9% (2018) and was observed for all major classes except thiazide diuretics. Patients with hypertension initiated thiazide diuretics (36.8%) and beta-blockers (23.6%) as first-line drugs before 2007, and ACE inhibitors (39.9%) and CCBs (31.8%) after 2007. After 2007, 17.3% were not prescribed guideline-recommended first-line agents. Overall, patients were prescribed a median of 2 classes (IQR 1-2) after first-line treatment.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-quarter of primary care patients were prescribed antihypertensive drugs by the end of the study period. Most patients with hypertension initiated guideline-recommended first-line agents. Not all patients, particularly females, were prescribed recommended agents however, potentially leading to suboptimal cardiovascular outcomes. Future research should aim to better understand the implication of this finding.

Arterial Stiffness, Cognitive Dysfunction and Adherence to Antihypertensive Agents. Is there a Link to Hypertensive Patients?

The incidence of hypertension (HTN) and its cardiovascular (CV) complications are increasing throughout the world. Blood pressure (BP) control remains unsatisfactory worldwide. Medical inertia and poor adherence to treatment are among the factors that can partially explain, why BP control rate remains low. The introduction of a method for measuring the degree of adherence to a given medication is now a prerequisite. Complex treatment regimes, inadequate tolerance and frequent replacements of pharmaceutical formulations are the most common causes of poor adherence. In contrast, the use of stable combinations of antihypertensive drugs leads to improved patient adherence. We aim to review the relationships between arterial stiffness, cognitive function and adherence to medication in patients with HTN. Large artery stiffening can lead to HTN. In turn, arterial stiffness induced by HTN is associated with an increased CV and stroke risk. In addition, HTN can induce disorders of brain microcirculation resulting in cognitive dysfunction. Interestingly, memory cognitive dysfunction leads to a reduced adherence to drug treatment. Compliance with antihypertensive treatment improves BP control and arterial stiffness indices. Early treatment of arterial stiffness is strongly recommended for enhanced cognitive function and increased adherence.

Association of Angiotensin II-Stimulating Antihypertensive Use and Dementia Risk: Post Hoc Analysis of the PreDIVA Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether angiotensin II-stimulating antihypertensives (thiazides, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin I receptor blockers) convey a lower risk of incident dementia compared to angiotensin II-inhibiting antihypertensives (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers), in accordance with the "angiotensin hypothesis."

METHODS

We performed Cox regression analyses of incident dementia (or mortality as competing risk) during 6-8 years of follow-up in a population sample of 1,909 community-dwelling individuals (54% women) without dementia, aged 70-78 (mean 74.5 ± 2.5) years.

RESULTS

After a median of 6.7 years of follow-up, dementia status was available for 1,870 (98%) and mortality for 1,904 (>99%) participants. Dementia incidence was 5.6% (27/480) in angiotensin II-stimulating, 8.2% (59/721) in angiotensin II-inhibiting, and 6.9% (46/669) in both antihypertensive type users. Adjusted for dementia risk factors including blood pressure and medical history, angiotensin II-stimulating antihypertensive users had a 45% lower incident dementia rate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.89) without excess mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16), and individuals using both types had a nonsignificant 20% lower dementia rate (HR, 0.80; 95% CI,0.53-1.20) without excess mortality (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.24), compared to angiotensin II-inhibiting antihypertensive users. Results were consistent for subgroups based on diabetes and stroke history, but may be specific for individuals without a history of cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Users of angiotensin II-stimulating antihypertensives had lower dementia rates compared to angiotensin II-inhibiting antihypertensive users, supporting the angiotensin hypothesis. Confounding by indication must be examined further, although subanalyses suggest this did not influence results. If replicated, dementia prevention could become a compelling indication for older individuals receiving antihypertensive treatment.

Differential Patterns of Adherence to Opioid Therapy in Opioid Naïve and Opioid Existing Patients With Different Age Groups

Limited data are available on the adherence to opioid therapy and the influence of different patient groups on adherence. This study examined the patterns of adherence in opioid naïve and opioid existing patients with varying age and gender. This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the prescription databases in tertiary hospital settings in Malaysia from 2010 to 2016. Adult patients aged ≥18 years, receiving at least two opioid prescriptions, were included and stratified into the opioid naïve and existing patient groups. Adherence to opioid therapy was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC), which was derived by dividing the total number of days covered with any opioids by the number of days in the follow-up period. Generalized linear modeling was used to assess factors associated with PDC. A total of 10,569 patients with 36,650 prescription episodes were included in the study. Of these, 91.7% (n = 9,696) were opioid naïve patients and 8.3% (n = 873) were opioid existing patients. The median PDC was 35.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 10.3–78.7%) and 26.8% (IQR 8.8–69.5%) for opioid naïve and opioid existing patients, respectively. A higher opioid daily dose (coefficient 0.010, confidence interval (CI) 0.009, 0.012 p < 0.0001) and increasing age (coefficient 0.002, CI 0.001, 0.003 p < 0.0001) were associated with higher levels of PDC, while lower PDC values were associated with male subjects (coefficient −0.0041, CI −0.072, −0.010 p = 0.009) and existing opioid patients (coefficient −0.134, CI −0.191, −0.077 p < 0.0001). The suboptimal adherence to opioid medications was commonly observed among patients with non-cancer pain, and the opioid existing patients were less adherent compared to opioid naïve patients. Increasing age and a higher daily opioid dose were factors associated with higher levels of adherence, while male and opioid existing patients were potential determinants for lower levels of adherence to opioid medications.

Antihypertensive therapy prescribing patterns and correlates of blood pressure control among hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease

We used electronic health records (EHRs) data from 5658 ambulatory chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with hypertension and prescribed antihypertensive therapy to examine antihypertensive drug prescribing patterns, blood pressure (BP) control, and risk factors for resistant hypertension (RHTN) in a real-world setting. Two-thirds of CKD patients and three-fourths of those with proteinuria were prescribed guideline-recommended renoprotective agents including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB); however, one-third were not prescribed an ACEI or ARB. CKD patients, particularly those with stages 1-2 CKD, who were prescribed regimens including beta-blocker (BB) + diuretic or ACEI/ARB + BB + diuretic were more likely to have controlled BP (<140/90 mm Hg) compared to those prescribed other combinations. Risk factors for RHTN included African American race and major comorbidities. Clinicians may use these findings to tailor antihypertensive therapy to the needs of each patient, including providing CKD stage-specific treatment, and better identify CKD patients at risk of RHTN.

Long-term effectiveness of bisoprolol in patients with angina: A real-world evidence study

A cohort analysis using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was performed to compare the effects of bisoprolol, other β-blockers, and drugs other than β-blockers on the long-term risk of mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with angina. Adult patients first diagnosed with angina from 2000 to 2014, with ≥365 days of registration to first angina diagnosis and initiating monotherapies of bisoprolol, other β-blockers, or drugs other than β-blockers within 6 months of angina diagnosis were included. Incidence rates for each treatment cohort were compared using adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained from Cox regression analyses. Overall, 987 patients were treated with bisoprolol, 1348 with other β-blockers and 5272 with drugs other than β-blockers. Over the total follow-up (≤14 years), the HR of bisoprolol versus other β-blockers and drugs other than β-blockers for mortality was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.34-0.61) and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.38-0.66), respectively. The HR of bisoprolol versus other β-blockers for angina was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68) and versus drugs other than β-blockers was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68-0.88), respectively. For myocardial infarction, the HR of bisoprolol versus drugs other than β-blockers up to 14 years was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.23-0.52) and versus other β-blockers up to 5 years was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.27-0.75). At 5 years, the HR of bisoprolol versus other β-blockers, and drugs other than β-blockers, for arrhythmia was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.35-1.0) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.40-0.93), respectively. In conclusion, long-term significant reduction in the risk of mortality and various cardiovascular events with bisoprolol versus other β-blockers, and drugs other than β-blockers, confirm treatment guidelines recommendation that bisoprolol is particularly well suited as the first-line treatment of angina in primary care.

Pharmacological intervention in hypertension using beta-blockers: Real-world evidence for long-term effectiveness

The study objective was to compare the long-term incidence and risk of mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension initiating bisoprolol, other β-blockers or other antihypertensive therapies. Cohort analysis using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Adult patients with first diagnosis of hypertension recorded between 2000 and 2014, with ≥365 days of registration to first event and initiating monotherapies of bisoprolol, other β-blockers or drugs other than β-blockers within 6 months of diagnosis were included. Incidence rates (IR) for each treatment cohort were compared using adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained from Cox regression analyses. Of 100,066 patients included, 539 were prescribed bisoprolol, 3701 other β-blockers, and 95,826 drugs other than β-blockers. Patients receiving bisoprolol had significantly increased survival from 2 up to <15 years (HR for <15 years 0.34; 95% CI 0.18-0.67) versus other β-blockers, and from 5 to <15 years (HR for <15 years 0.52; 95% CI 0.27-1.00) versus drugs other than β-blockers. Over time, the risk of arrhythmia was higher in the bisoprolol cohort versus other β-blockers, and risks of arrhythmia and angina were higher versus drugs other than β-blockers. No differences in the risk of embolism, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) were found between cohorts. Over time, mortality and cardiovascular outcome IRs decreased in each cohort. In conclusion, bisoprolol showed sustained benefit on survival, evident from 2 years after treatment initiation versus other β-blockers, and from 5 years versus drugs other than β-blockers, providing long-term evidence supporting the use of bisoprolol in patients with hypertension in primary care.