Dataset Information

Factors associated with antihypertensive treatment intensification and deintensification in older outpatients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

New hypertension performance measures encourage more intensive treatment in older adults. Treatment intensification includes starting new medications and increasing the dose of old ones. Medication dose is particularly important to older adults, given their vulnerability to dose-related side effects. We previously validated a standardized measure of beneficial doses tested in hypertension trials, Hypertension Daily Dose (HDD).

Aim of the study

To test whether changes in treatment intensity using HDD was associated with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and patient characteristics.

Methods

Longitudinal study of all Veterans aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of hypertension. We defined 3 groups of risk: 1) cardiovascular risk; 2) geriatric/frail; 3) low-risk (comparator). Using multinomial regression, we assessed the probability of deintensification, intensification, vs. stable treatment, according to SBP and group.

Results

Among 1,331,111 Veterans, 19.9% had deintensification, and 29.6% intensification. Deintensification decreased, while intensification increased, with SBP. Compared to low-risk patients, cardiovascular risk patients had 1.11 (95% CI 1.10-1.13) times the odds of intensifying, and geriatric/frail patients 1.45 (95%CI 1.43-1.47) times the odds of deintensifying.

Discussion

Patient-level HDD change was consistent with an expected association with cardiovascular risk and geriatric/frail conditions, suggesting that HDD can be used longitudinally to assess hypertension treatment modification in large health systems.

SUBMITTER: Aubert CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254109 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Targeting better glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and blood pressure (BP) goals may endanger older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Overtreatment of T2DM and hypertension is a trending issue, although undertreatment is still common. We investigated the rates and predictors of overtreatment and undertreatment of glycemia and BP in older adults with T2DM and physicians' attitudes to deintensify or intensify treatment. METHODS:Data from older adults (≥ 65 years) enrolled in a large nationwide T2DM survey in 2017 across Turkey were analyzed. Overtreatment of glycemia was defined as HbA1c < 6.5% plus the use of ≥ 2 oral antihyperglycemics or insulin, and BP overtreatment was defined as systolic BP (SBP) < 120 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) < 65 mmHg plus the use of ≥ 2 drugs. Undertreatment of glycemia was defined as HbA1c > 9%, and BP undertreatment was defined as SBP > 150 mmHg or DBP > 90 mmHg. Deintensification or intensification rates were calculated according to treatment modification initiated by the treating physician(s). RESULTS:The rate of overtreatment in the glycemia group (n = 1264) was 9.8% (n = 124) and that in the BP group (n = 1052) was 7.3% (n = 77), whereas the rate of undertreatment was 14.2% (n = 180) and 15.2% (n = 160), respectively. In the adjusted model, use of oral secretagogues (sulfonylureas or glinides) (odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-3.1) and follow-up at a private clinic (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.0-3.3) were predictors of glycemia overtreatment. BP overtreatment was independently associated with the use insulin-based diabetes therapies (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.14-3.04). There was no independent association of BP undertreatment to the study confounders. The deintensification and intensification rates were 25 and 75.6%, respectively, for glycemia and 10.9 and 9.2%, respectively, for BP. CONCLUSIONS:The results show that one in ten older adults with T2DM are overtreated while one in four require modification of their current antihyperglycemic and antihypertensive treatments. Physicians are eager to intensify medications while they largely ignore deintensification in diabetes management. These results warrant enforced measures to improve the care of older adults with T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03455101.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess how often older adults admitted to hospital for common non-cardiac conditions were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment, and to identify markers of appropriateness for these intensifications.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingUS Veterans Administration Health System.ParticipantsPatients aged 65 years or over with hypertension admitted to hospital with non-cardiac conditions between 2011 and 2013.Main outcome measuresIntensification of antihypertensive treatment, defined as receiving a new or higher dose antihypertensive agent at discharge compared with drugs used before admission. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to control for characteristics of patients and hospitals.ResultsAmong 14?915 older adults (median age 76, interquartile range 69-84), 9636 (65%) had well controlled outpatient blood pressure before hospital admission. Overall, 2074 (14%) patients were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment, more than half of whom (1082) had well controlled blood pressure before admission. After adjustment for potential confounders, elevated inpatient blood pressure was strongly associated with being discharged on intensified antihypertensive regimens. Among patients with previously well controlled outpatient blood pressure, 8% (95% confidence interval 7% to 9%) of patients without elevated inpatient blood pressure, 24% (21% to 26%) of patients with moderately elevated inpatient blood pressure, and 40% (34% to 46%) of patients with severely elevated inpatient blood pressure were discharged with intensified antihypertensive regimens. No differences were seen in rates of intensification among patients least likely to benefit from tight blood pressure control (limited life expectancy, dementia, or metastatic malignancy), nor in those most likely to benefit (history of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or renal disease).ConclusionsOne in seven older adults admitted to hospital for common non-cardiac conditions were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment. More than half of intensifications occurred in patients with previously well controlled outpatient blood pressure. More attention is needed to reduce potentially harmful overtreatment of blood pressure as older adults transition from hospital to home.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Non-adherence to antihypertensive medication treatment (AHM) is a complex health behavior with determinants that extend beyond the individual patient. The structural and social determinants of health (SDH) that predispose populations to ill health and unhealthy behaviors could be potential barriers to long-term adherence to AHM. However, the role of SDH in AHM non-adherence has been understudied. Therefore, we aimed to define and identify the SDH factors associated with non-adherence to AHM and to quantify the variation in county-level non-adherence to AHM explained by these factors. METHODS:Two cross-sectional datasets, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Atlas of Heart Disease and Stroke (2014-2016 cycle) and the 2016 County Health Rankings (CHR), were linked to create an analytic dataset. Contextual SDH variables were extracted from the CDC-CHR linked dataset. County-level prevalence of AHM non-adherence, based on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries' claims data, was extracted from the CDC Atlas dataset. The CDC measured AHM non-adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) with AHM during a 365 day period for Medicare Part D beneficiaries and aggregated these measures at the county level. We applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to identify the constructs of social determinants of AHM non-adherence. AHM non-adherence variation and its social determinants were measured with structural equation models. RESULTS:Among 3000 counties in the U.S., the weighted mean prevalence of AHM non-adherence (PDC < 80%) in 2015 was 25.0%, with a standard deviation (SD) of 18.8%. AHM non-adherence was directly associated with poverty/food insecurity (? = 0.31, P-value < 0.001) and weak social supports (? = 0.27, P-value < 0.001), but inversely with healthy built environment (? = -0.10, P-value = 0.02). These three constructs explained one-third (R2 = 30.0%) of the variation in county-level AHM non-adherence. CONCLUSION:AHM non-adherence varies by geographical location, one-third of which is explained by contextual SDH factors including poverty/food insecurity, weak social supports and healthy built environments.