Literature DB >> 11849200

What benefit do patients expect from adding second and third antihypertensive drugs?

Hannah Leaman1, Peter R Jackson.   

Abstract

AIMS: To discover whether patients have the same expectations of benefit from taking the first and any additional drugs for the treatment of hypertension and to investigate any patient characteristics which predict willingness to take treatment.
METHODS: This was an anonymous questionnaire survey carried out in a single primary care group. A random sample of patients from the practice list stratified by age and gender were surveyed to determine what benefit they required before deciding to receive first and subsequent drugs to treat hypertension. They were asked to indicate the largest number needing treatment for 5 years (NNT5) to prevent myocardial infarction in 1 (smallest benefit) that would persuade them of the need for treatment. Demographic information which might explain variability in enthusiasm for treatment was also collected. RESULTS PARTICIPANTS: required far higher benefit to consider drug treatment than expected with a mean NNT5 for the first treatment of 15.0 (95% CI 12.3, 17.8). Marginal benefit demanded for the addition of second and third treatments was at least as great with an NNT5 of 13.2 (95% CI 10.8, 15.7) and NNT5 of 11.0 (95% CI 8.6, 13.4). Additional factors influencing willingness to take treatment were gender with a difference in NNT5 between men and women of 7.1 (95% CI 1.7, 12.5), difficulty in making the decision (very easy vs very difficult) of 14.9 (95% CI 6.0, 23.8), and years in full time education 2.0 (95% CI 0.9, 3.0) for each additional year of education. Any slope of NNT5 with increasing number of tablets disappeared when gender, years in education, and difficulty in reaching a decision were taken into account simultaneously.
CONCLUSIONS: People may have greater expectation of benefit from antihypertensive drug treatment than it provides. They certainly do not view the addition of subsequent drugs as any lesser step than starting the first in terms of the benefit expected. Full understanding of both the risks and benefits may be of critical importance with those spending longer in full time education and those expending more effort in making the decision accepting more treatment. The discrepancy between benefit expected and that available demands further research into methods of determining patients' expectations and informing individual patient decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11849200      PMCID: PMC1874545          DOI: 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01505.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  9 in total

1.  Thresholds for taking antihypertensive drugs in different professional and lay groups: questionnaire survey.

Authors:  N Steel
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-27

Review 2.  Why has the primary prevention of myocardial infarction in the treatment of hypertension been so elusive?

Authors:  J M Cruickshank
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 3.012

3.  Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension)

Authors:  B Dahlöf; L H Lindholm; L Hansson; B Scherstén; T Ekbom; P O Wester
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-11-23       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?

Authors:  N K Arora; C A McHorney
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group.

Authors:  L Hansson; A Zanchetti; S G Carruthers; B Dahlöf; D Elmfeldt; S Julius; J Ménard; K H Rahn; H Wedel; S Westerling
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-06-13       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  The management of hypertension in the elderly by general practitioners in Merseyside: the rule of halves revisited.

Authors:  M Cranney; S Barton; T Walley
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment?

Authors:  J E Hux; C D Naylor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context.

Authors:  R Collins; R Peto; S MacMahon; P Hebert; N H Fiebach; K A Eberlein; J Godwin; N Qizilbash; J O Taylor; C H Hennekens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-04-07       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence.

Authors:  M G Marmot; H Bosma; H Hemingway; E Brunner; S Stansfeld
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-07-26       Impact factor: 79.321

  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  A defined, plant-based diet utilized in an outpatient cardiovascular clinic effectively treats hypercholesterolemia and hypertension and reduces medications.

Authors:  Rami S Najjar; Carolyn E Moore; Baxter D Montgomery
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 2.882

2.  Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments.

Authors:  Ben Hudson; Abby Zarifeh; Lorraine Young; J Elisabeth Wells
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 3.  Patients' expectations of medicines--a review and qualitative synthesis.

Authors:  Ulrica Dohnhammar; Joanne Reeve; Tom Walley
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 3.377

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.