Skip main navigation

Adherence in Hypertension

A Review of Prevalence, Risk Factors, Impact, and Management
Originally published Research. 2019;124:1124–1140


    The global epidemic of hypertension is largely uncontrolled and hypertension remains the leading cause of noncommunicable disease deaths worldwide. Suboptimal adherence, which includes failure to initiate pharmacotherapy, to take medications as often as prescribed, and to persist on therapy long-term, is a well-recognized factor contributing to the poor control of blood pressure in hypertension. Several categories of factors including demographic, socioeconomic, concomitant medical-behavioral conditions, therapy-related, healthcare team and system-related factors, and patient factors are associated with nonadherence. Understanding the categories of factors contributing to nonadherence is useful in managing nonadherence. In patients at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, electronic and biochemical monitoring are useful for detecting nonadherence and for improving adherence. Increasing the availability and affordability of these more precise measures of adherence represent a future opportunity to realize more of the proven benefits of evidence-based medications. In the absence of new antihypertensive drugs, it is important that healthcare providers focus their attention on how to do better with the drugs they have. This is the reason why recent guidelines have emphasize the important need to address drug adherence as a major issue in hypertension management.

    The global burden of hypertension, defined as blood pressure (BP, mm Hg) ≥140 systolic or ≥90 diastolic or antihypertensive treatment, was projected to rise from 918 million adults in calendar year 2000 to 1.56 billion in 2025.1 The projected increase in the burden of hypertension reflected an expected rise in both prevalent hypertension from 26.4% to 29.2% and the worldwide population. By 2010, these projections appeared conservative as the worldwide prevalence of hypertension was estimated at 31.1%, affecting 1.39 billion people.2 The large increase in prevalent hypertension globally was explained largely by rapidly rising prevalence in low-middle–income countries. In 2010, ≈349 million hypertensive adults lived in high-income countries and 1.04 billion in low-middle–income countries. Prevalent hypertension was lower in high- than low-middle–income countries, whereas awareness, treatment, and control were substantially lower in the latter (Table 1). Among treated hypertensive adults, roughly one-half were controlled in high-income countries compared with one-fourth in low-middle–income countries.

    Table 1. Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in LMIC Versus HIC in 2000 and 20102


    HIC indicates high-income countries; and LMIC, low-middle–income countries.

    Assuming clinically valid BP values, 2 major factors contribute to hypertension control in treated patients; namely, prescription of an adequate number and dose of prescribed BP medications and adherence with therapy. This review focuses on patient adherence as a critical variable in BP control. Insightful statements with timeless truth include “Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them”3; and “the full benefits of medications cannot be realized at currently achievable levels of adherence.”4

    Adherence with pharmacotherapy for hypertension 1-year after initiation is typically reported at <50%.5,6 The proportion of treated patients controlled, historically ranging from 20% to 50% (Table 1),2,7 reflects both effectiveness of pharmacotherapy prescribed and adherence with treatment. Using the proportion of treated patients controlled as a proxy for adherence, data that are more recent suggest that adherence has been improving, at least in some countries. For example, in the United States, ≈70% of treated patients have been controlled to <140/<90 since 2007 to 2008,8 a level achieved in Germany during 2008 to 2011.9 In Canada, an extraordinary 85% of treated patients were controlled in 2013.10

    Hypertension control in Canada rivals many clinical trials, which typically exclude patients with comorbidities such as drug or alcohol abuse or dementia, factors that adversely impact adherence and control.11 In clinical trials, the treatment protocol is rigorous, clinical visits are relatively frequent and physicians and patients are motivated to reach protocol objectives. Thus, in a review of 192 studies in which pill count was used to assess adherence, drug adherence was found to be 93%.12 But more recent data suggest that even in clinical trials nonadherence can affect a substantial percentage of the participants.13 Consistent adherence is a key to sustained BP control, which, in turn, influences clinical outcomes. For example, in the INVEST (International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril trial), the greater the number of clinical visits with a nonhypertensive BP, the lower the incidence of clinical outcomes.14

    In the United States, the large improvement in hypertension control over time coincides with a greater number of antihypertensive medications prescribed per patient.15 Over time, the proportion of uncontrolled hypertensives in the United States with Stage 2 disease (BP ≥160 systolic or ≥100 diastolic) has declined,16 which suggests adherence improved in some patients not at goal BP, although one cannot exclude an impact of better BP measurement methods. The observations cited suggest that adherence is improving with time and that prior studies on adherence may be less valid currently. Yet, a substantial proportion of adults remains uncontrolled, even in countries with the highest control rates. Of greater concern are the large numbers of adults in low-middle–income countries, with uncontrolled hypertension, who continue to have a relatively low proportion of treated adults at goal BP levels (Table 1).2 Indeed, the survival of a treated hypertensive patient not at goal is similar to that of an untreated hypertensive patient suggesting that a lot of efforts are made for little benefits.17

    The impact of suboptimal adherence, a key contributor to uncontrolled hypertension, will be addressed in greater detail subsequently. In brief and from a global perspective, there were ≈56.4 million deaths in 2015. Approximately 70% of deaths worldwide were attributed to noncommunicable diseases including hypertension with 75% of those deaths occurring in low-middle–income countries (noncommunicable disease mortality and morbidity). Global Health Observatory data: (accessed August 16, 2018). Cardiovascular diseases accounted for 45% of deaths because of noncommunicable diseases with uncontrolled hypertension the major risk factor.

    In the present review focused on adults with hypertension, we shall (1) define suboptimal adherence and persistence, (2) examine the methods for detecting suboptimal adherence and its prevalence in treated hypertensive patients including those with treatment resistant hypertension, (3) identify contributing and associated factors, (4) describe the health and economic impact of suboptimal adherence, and (5) provide practical guidance for improving adherence.

    Definitions of Suboptimal Adherence

    Many definitions of compliance or adherence can be found in the literature before the World Health Organization (WHO) published the first official definition of adherence in 2003.7,18 In contrast to previous ones, it was not restricted to drug therapy and included all aspects of disease management such as diet and lifestyle changes. Thus, adherence was defined as the extent to which a person’s behavior-taking medication, following a diet, and executing lifestyle changes, corresponds with agreed recommendations from a health care provider. In 2009, a consensus meeting on adherence was held that gathered together >80 persons of various professional horizons but all involved in patients’ care with medications. This consensus meeting resulted in a new taxonomy published in 2012.19 In this publication, the authors differentiate the processes, such as adherence to medications and the management of adherence, from the discipline studying these processes, that is, the adherence-related sciences. According to this consensus, adherence to medications is a process characterized by 3 major components: the initiation, the implementation, and the discontinuation. Initiation is the time from prescription until the first dose of the medication is taken. In clinical studies, 4% to 5% of patients never start their treatment, despite the fact that they accepted to be enrolled in a study.5 In clinical practice, noninitiation seems to be much more frequent with figures >20% in patients treated for hypertension but also in those treated for diabetes mellitus or dyslipidemia.20 However, this phenomenon may vary considerably depending on the countries and the access to medications.

    The implementation of the dosing regimen is the extent to which a patient’s actual dosing corresponds to the prescribed dosing regimen. This component of adherence is best assessed using methods providing a complete dosing history, and hence, tackling the day-to-day variations in drug intake.19 A poor implementation is the typical consequence of occasional forgetfulness or negligence resulting in more or less prolonged periods of treatment interruptions. These latter may be intentional or nonintentional, but in the majority of cases, there is no clear intention of patients to omit their medications. When the dosing history is available, additional parameters of implementation can be defined and quantified. This includes the proportion of prescribed drug taken, the proportion of days with a correct number of doses taken (taking adherence), the proportion of doses taken on time respecting the dosing intervals (timing adherence) and the number of drug holidays as intervals of time when a patient temporarily stops taking the medications. Yet, it is not possible to define drug adherence quantitatively with a given threshold below which a patient can be considered as poorly adherent. Indeed, although an arbitrary cutoff of 80% is frequently used in the literature to define a good adherence, there is little evidence, if any, that this cutoff is relevant.21 Indeed, 80% adherence is obtained in many ways as illustrated in Figure 1 and these different profiles may have different consequences in terms of clinical impact. In this context, the pharmacological profile of the prescribed drugs, in particular the duration of action, is a major determinant of the impact of missed doses on BP control.22 In addition, the clinical consequences of missed doses may differ in patients with mild hypertension and those with severe resistant hypertension, for example.

    Figure 1.

    Figure 1. Dosing history of 2 patients with 80% adherence to their medications prescribed once a day. Each vertical bar represents a missed dose. Each blue point represents one opening of the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) pillbox. Note the variability of the timing with doses taken in the morning but also in the evening. Patient on the left has no drug taken for more than a week (gray zone). This illustrates the dynamic process of drug adherence.

    At last, discontinuation marks the end of therapy, when the next dose to be taken is omitted and the treatment is interrupted thereafter. This parameter enables the definition of persistence, which is the length of time between initiation and the last dose immediately preceding discontinuation. Nonpersistence is one of the most common cause of poor adherence in hypertension with 50% of patients having stopped their treatment at 1 year.5 It is particularly prevalent among newly treated hypertensive patients,23,24 and the risk of discontinuation seems to be higher among patients aged <40 years.25 The choice of drug classes prescribed for the treatment of hypertension also has an impact on adherence and persistence due essentially to the side effect profile,23,26,27 although the dosing frequency may play as much a role as the drug class itself.28 Obviously, a lack of persistence has a major influence on BP control as patients remain off medication for long periods.

    In recent years, the use of large computerized administrative health databases containing pharmacy or medical data are becoming increasingly common and represent new sources of medical evidence.29,30 These databases enable assessment of drug prescriptions as well as the utilization patterns and drug persistence in large groups of patients. Although they do not provide a precise dosing history, these databases give information on medication prescription, initiation, and refills during a defined period enabling calculation of drug persistence.25,31 Sometimes, these data can also be correlated to the occurrence of events such as death or cardiovascular events. Using this approach, the main parameters that are generally calculated are the percentage of days covered by the prescriptions32 or the medication possession ratio, defined as the ratio of total days of medication supplied to total days in a defined time-period. It is also possible to calculate the new prescription medication gap, a metric that starts with the date of prescription and includes the time until initiation, which is not the case with the medication possession ratio.33

    Suboptimal Adherence: Contributing and Associated Factors

    In the WHO 2003 Report, Adherence to long-term therapies: Evidence for action,18 it was noted that “The ability of patients to follow treatments is frequently compromised by more than one barrier… Interventions to promote adherence require several components to target these barriers, and health professionals must follow a systematic process to assess all the potential barriers.” While the literature on adherence has advanced during the past 15 years, the 5 dimensions of adherence in the 2003 Report remain useful (Table 2). A conceptual understanding of these 5 dimensions can inform a more comprehensive assessment of factors contributing to suboptimal adherence as a prelude to the design, implementation, and refinement of effective, multicomponent interventions to realize more health benefits of antihypertensive therapy.

    Table 2. Adherence: Five Categories of Factors Impacting Adherence to Prescription Medications*

    SociodemographicHealth Care Team/Health Care SystemTherapy-RelatedCondition-RelatedPatient-Related
    Young and very old adultsPatient-clinician relationshipComplex regimensMultiple chronic conditionsDeny diagnosis
    Minority race-ethnicityCommunication styleTreatment changesDepression, psychosesPerception of illness severity/future impact
    Low income, povertyPatient-centerednessTreatment failureDrug/alcohol abusePerception of treatment efficacy
    Homeless, unstable homeLack of team-based careTime to benefitDementiaFear dependence or adverse effects
    Social supportClinician burn outAdverse effectsMajor disabilityLack knowledge/misunderstanding
    CopaymentsFail to detect cluesTreatment durationSymptom severityForget
    (Health) literacyLack knowledge/QI supportRefill frequencyQuality of lifeLimited follow-up
    Transportation, rural residentsAccess to and cost of careRefill consolidationLow self-efficacy/discount future
    War, disastersPay for volumeAlternative therapy

    QI indicates quality improvement; and QOL, quality of life.

    *Data derived from World Health Organization. Adherence to Long Term Therapies: Evidence for Action; 2003.18

    Sociodemographic, Economic, and Environmental Factors

    Several factors in this group, many of which are listed in Table 2, are associated with suboptimal adherence.6,7,11,34 However, not all of these factors, such as age, income, and race-ethnicity, are consistently related with adherence across all studies. Attempts have been made to derive clinically useful predictors of adherence by combining several sociodemographic and clinical variables, which are significantly different between adherent and nonadherent patient groups. However, a composite score developed from a basket of these variables may not provide clinically useful discrimination even for individuals from which the predictive model was developed.35 A more effective strategy may be to use reliable methods to detect suboptimal adherence in specific patients and then to identify the specific factors in this dimension rather than designing systems that provide solutions for all patients with barriers in this category, when many are adherent. This statement is not intended to minimize the very real challenges to adherence presented by individuals experiencing various sociodemographic, economic, and environmental barriers but rather to indicate that many individuals are adherent, despite the barriers.

    Hypertension control in uninsured and privately insured adults over time is one indirect example of the limited prediction of outcomes from 3 generally recognized predictors of adherence. Publicly and private insured adults in the United States had virtually identical BP control from 1988 to 2010,36 which included a roughly 22% absolute improvement in control over that time period. However, the publicly insured group had a larger proportion of racial-ethnic minorities with lower incomes and less education than the privately insured, 3 factors often cited as predictors of suboptimal adherence.

    Health Care Team/Health Care System

    The quality of the relationship between the patient and clinician, the communication style of the clinician, and the patient-centeredness of treatment decisions all impact adherence.6,7,11,34,37,38 Trust is the critical currency in most human interactions and this applies especially to healthcare. The patient must have confidence that their clinician is competent and has their best interests foremost in management decisions. A collaborative communication style and communication that includes circular and reflexive questions are more effective than a lineal and strategic inquisition style akin to a witness being cross-examined by an attorney. Thus, ‘did you take your medication(s)?’ or ‘why don’t you follow a low-salt diet?’ is less effective that ‘are you having any problems with your medications such as they’re too costly or cause unpleasant adverse effects?’ or ‘how does a low-salt diet affect you?’ or ‘what are some of the difficulties you have with a low-salt diet’?

    Patients that participate in decisions on what medications to take are more adherent than patients who are not engaged in the decision.39 Racial-ethnic minorities are less often engaged in decision on their treatment than white adults, which may be a contributing factor to lower adherence in the former.40 Team-based care and well-functioning patient-centered medical homes are associated with better adherence and risk factor control than when these factors are not present.41,42 In addition to suboptimal communication, overworked and burned out clinicians can adversely impact the adherence of their patients. Clinicians and staff are generally happier and more productive in an effective team-based care arrangement, and, clinician burnout is reduced.42 Often times, clinicians and staff fail to recognize key clues linked to suboptimal adherence such as missed appointments or prescription refills or poor therapeutic response to medications or combinations of medications that are almost always effective.43

    Practice settings without adaptive reserve in which clinicians, staff, and administration expend all their time and energy working to get through the day and complete all documentation and billing requirements are not positioned to implement constructive changes to improving patient care, adherence, and outcomes.44 Practice settings with adaptive reserve in which high-quality care is valued and time, resources and reports are available to support quality improvement are positioned to enhance patient engagement, adherence, and outcomes.

    Access to and cost of care and medications are clearly important in clinical outcomes and adherence.6,7,11,18,34,45 Uninsured adults in the United States experienced no significant improvement in hypertension control between 1988 and 2010, whereas a demographically similar group with public (government)-sponsored health insurance had virtually identical control to a more affluent and better educated group with private health insurance.36 As noted both insured groups had a roughly 22% absolute improvement in hypertension control during this time-period in sharp contrast to no improvement in uninsured adults. Moreover, healthcare payment directed mainly to volume of care and clinical documentation, which was the standard in the United States is a barrier to supporting patient adherence and key clinical outcomes. For example, a study in the 1970s showed that reallocating some time spent in documenting variables toward patient education and support improved adherence to antihypertensive medications and BP control.45

    Therapy-Related Factors/Interventions

    Complex regimens with multiple medications, especially when paired with multiple daily doses, are long-recognized as barriers to adherence.6,7,11,18 Alternatively, fewer medications, and especially fewer pills, which can be implemented using once daily single-pill combinations are consistently associated with better adherence and hypertension control.45,46 Patients who reach therapeutic targets more rapidly, who require fewer adjustments in their medication regimen, and who experience no or limited adverse effects are more likely to adhere than patients with a longer period to control, who often undergo multiple changes to their medication regimens, and experience adverse effects, are less likely to adhere to treatment.6,7,11,18 Long-term chronic diseases, such as hypertension, are often associated with progressive declines in persistence on treatment with the passage of months and years.47,48

    In addition to single-pill combinations, clinicians can further improve adherence by prescribing a larger number of pills with each prescription to reduce refill frequency.49,50 Moreover, patients with hypertension often require multiple medications to control their hypertension, and they frequently have other chronic diseases requiring additional medications. Refill consolidation so that multiple medications are obtained at the same time can improve adherence.51

    Condition-Related Factors/Interventions

    Adults with hypertension, especially with aging, often have multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy, which may adversely affects medication adherence. Major depression and other psychoses can adversely influence adherence as can drug or alcohol abuse and dementia.52,53 Interestingly, alterations of memory in elderly patients can results in a poor adherence as well as in an overadherence, with a higher drug consumption than what has been prescribed, which may induce drug toxicity.54 Not surprisingly, major disabilities and poor quality of life are documented to adversely affect medication adherence,55 especially when the medication(s) do not attenuate the disability or enhance quality of life. On a related note, severe chronic symptomatology, similar to chronic asymptomatic disease,56 can adversely impact medication adherence.

    Patient-Related Factors/Interventions

    As noted in the 2003 WHO Report on adherence, patient-related factors are often the principal focus of efforts to understand and improve adherence, which can lessen attention to the important role played by the other dimensions of adherence.18 While most interventions center on patient-related factors can improve adherence, failure to account for other dimensions of adherence typically leads to suboptimal improvements in adherence and associated clinical outcomes. To highlight the importance of these other dimensions, patient-related factors, which are important, were presented last in the 2003 WHO Report and the current review.

    Some patients do not accept the diagnosis, which is obviously a major impediment to adherence. While not denying the diagnosis, other patients may fail to perceive the potentially severe impact of a currently asymptomatic disease on future health risk, including symptomatic and life-threatening conditions, such as coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure, stroke, or dementia. If patients perceive that prescription medications are ineffective in controlling hypertension or are likely to have major adverse effects, then adherence is likely to be adversely impacted. A lack of knowledge about hypertension and its consequences are logically linked to suboptimal adherence. Yet, adherence interventions based only on education often lead to suboptimal results,6,7,11,18,34,57 although education is often a component of successful multimethod interventions. One example of a common misunderstanding that adversely affects adherence is the term hypertension, which connotes too many patients that stress or behavioral issues are the root cause of the elevated BP.58 In fact, patients with this perception of hypertension are less likely to take antihypertensive medications.

    Forgetfulness is a common contributor to suboptimal adherence, a conclusion supported by evidence that multimethod interventions, which improve adherence often address this barrier.1–5 Low self-efficacy, or lacking confidence in one’s ability to self-manage effectively a condition or disease, is another frequently documented barrier to adherence.6,7,11,18,34,59

    Patients who use alternatives to traditional or Western medicine are less likely to adhere with prescription medications.60,61 Preference for alternative therapies appears to be more common among black than white adults in the United States and may contribute to lower adherence in the former.62

    Less well appreciated and investigated is the issue of future discounting. Individuals who discount the future at higher rates appear less likely to engage in preventive health behaviors including taking medications for chronic conditions, although additional research is needed.62–64 In other words, understanding that hypertension is a serious condition and that treatment is effective may be insufficient to foster adherence if the patient believes that the consequences will occur at a future date, for example, 5 years or more, that does not have value today.

    Brief Section Summary

    Multiple lines of evidence indicate that adherence is a complex, multidimensional variable. The WHO 2003 Report provides a useful conceptual model (Table 2) for grouping the multiple variables that impact adherence.18 This conceptual model can serve to inform effective approaches for identifying nonadherence as well as designing, evaluating, and revising interventions to enhance adherence.

    Detection of Suboptimal Adherence and Prevalence With Special Reference to Resistant Hypertension

    In chronic diseases where medication primarily serves as a preventive measure, and not to suppress symptoms, maintaining long-term adherence is particularly difficult, and the risk of treatment discontinuation is very high. Thus, among various cardiovascular medication classes, prescriptions of antihypertensive and lipid lowering drugs have the highest rates of noninitiation.65 In addition, in these clinical conditions, only about half of the patients remained on therapy after 2 years.23,66 Of interest, Naderi et al67 have found similar low figures in the 50% range in primary as well as in secondary cardiovascular prevention. Thus, in real life, prolonged discontinuation of antihypertensive therapies is extremely common as shown by Corrao et al23 who analyzed the Lombardy database.

    Though poor adherence is recognized as a major contributor of uncontrolled hypertension in surveys, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines, detection of suboptimal adherence remains a major challenge for all physicians and healthcare partners. Indeed, as of today, there is no simple, cheap, reliable methods to assess medication adherence in clinical practice. As illustrated in Table 3, simple methods tend to be relatively unreliable, and methods providing the best information tend to be more expensive and demanding in terms of infrastructures. The ideal method to assess drug adherence should provide a reliable capture, storage, analysis, and communication of dosing history data in ways that make it difficult or impossible for patients or trial staff to censor or otherwise manipulate the data.21 As of today, none of the available systems fulfills all these criteria.

    Table 3. Characteristics of Methods Available for the Detection of Poor Adherence in Hypertension

    MethodsInterviewQuestionnairePill CountRefill DataDOTElectronic MonitoringDrug AssayDigital Medicine*
    Type of dataQualitativeQualitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQuantitativeQualitativeQuantitative
    Clinical use++++++++++

    DOT indicates directly observed treatment.

    *Proteus system newly available in some countries.

    Patient’s Interview

    The patient’s interview is definitively the simplest approach but studies have reported that interviewing the patients is no better than tossing a coin.68 There are many reasons to explain this observation. The first is the quality of the interview, which will depend on the communication skills of physicians and on the ability to conduct a nonjudgmental discussion. The second is that patients tend to overestimate their adherence either because they do not recall the missing doses or because they want to please their physicians and avoid embarrassing discussions. The third is the intrinsic nature of adherence, which is highly variable and dynamic process.21 Hence, it is difficult to characterize precisely a patient who may be adherent during some periods and poorly adherent during others.


    Questionnaires have been developed to improve and structure self-reports. They are rarely used in everyday clinical practice mainly because they are time consuming. Nonetheless, questionnaires represent a good choice in clinical research, a context in which forms can be filled in by the patients themselves or by trained nurses or other healthcare professionals. Today, Nguyen et al69 have identified >40 English-written adherence questionnaires, the most well-known being undoubtedly the Morisky questionnaire.70 In general, questionnaires tend to overestimate true adherence and when compared with methods providing a complete dosing history, the correlation is rather low (well below 0.5) even for the Morisky questionnaire, although adherence determined by questionnaires tend to correlate with BP control. Yet, questionnaires are useful as a complement to more objective measures as they may provide additional information on the reasons why patients do not adhere or on the barriers encountered by patients during their medication-taking process.69

    Pill Count

    Pill count is the most frequent method of assessing drug adherence in clinical trials.71 It provides a relatively good overview of what has been taken by the patient during the study. However, pill count is not devoid of limitations. Indeed, studies have demonstrated a trend towards overestimation of adherence with this approach. This has been evidenced providing pillboxes containing more pills than actually needed. Despite the excess of pills, patients often returned an empty box leading to a calculated adherence rate >100%.

    Prescription Refills Data

    As discussed previously, in large epidemiological surveys, persistence can be assessed using prescription refills data.25,29,32 With the calculation of the percentage of days covered by the prescriptions, one can obtain a rough estimate of drug adherence and persistence. This approach is particularly useful when an electronic monitoring of drug prescriptions in pharmacies is available. However, this method assumes that patients are taking their drugs adequately every day when the therapy is available and this is certainly not the case. Moreover, it is crucial that the data acquisition system covers all sources of medication delivery as reported, for example, in countries like Sweden.29

    Today, 2 techniques of measuring drug adherence tend to prevail in clinical practice and in clinical trials, that is, the electronic monitoring of medication adherence and the measurement of antihypertensive drugs in blood or urine using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

    Electronic Monitoring System

    The first electronic monitoring system for medication adherence, known as the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS), was developed in 1977. Its principle consisted in the incorporation of a microcircuit into medication packages such as any removal of a dose of the drug is detected in real time, time stamped, analyzed, stored, and communicated. Today, >750 articles involving over 1 million trial subjects have been published in peer-reviewed journals with this technique but its implementation in clinical practice remains limited to expert centers. The availability of dosing histories has repeatedly demonstrated that in ambulatory care, drug intake is characterized by a high irregularity with a wide spectrum of deviations from the prescribed regimen leading in general to an underdosing because of missed or delayed doses.72 Interestingly, these observations were made across all therapeutic areas including chronic diseases, such as hypertension or dyslipidemia, but also life-threatening conditions, such as HIV,73 organ transplantation,74 or cancer chemotherapy.75 Poor adherence or nonadherence was even reported in large clinical trials confounding sometimes the interpretation of the study results.76–78 One general criticism to the electronic monitoring systems is the possibility that the system is activated while opening the pillbox but the dose is not taken. This is indeed the case, but when analyzing the data, the critical features are the nonopenings rather than the openings. In this respect, the system is analog to the determination of drug levels where the total absence of a compound is more relevant in terms of nonadherence than the actual presence of the drug. Moreover, studies comparing the MEMS data and the drug concentrations have shown that there is 97% accuracy between the 2 methods suggesting that when the pillbox is opened drugs are indeed taken.79 Yet, in contrast to drug measurements, which are punctual, electronic monitoring systems provide additional information on drug-taking behaviors (taking, timing, frequency of omissions, compensatory intakes) based on the dosing history. Therefore, despite its limitation, electronic monitoring is one the most reliable technique to diagnose poor adherence and to follow and support adherence in chronic treatments. Several investigators have used the MEMS system to investigate the prevalence of poor adherence in hypertension.80–82 Interestingly, in contrast to the general physicians’ perception, drug adherence was often found to be high (>90% adherence) although with a great variability and rather weak correlations between the level of adherence and that of BP.83,84 The main explanation for this apparent discrepancy between the perceived adherence and the measured adherence may be the measurement bias, as adherence tend to improve as soon as it is measured. The absence of strong correlation may also be because of the fact that high BP values can be found in nonadherent as well as in adherent patients if these latter are insufficiently treated. The measurement bias is particularly strong when the monitoring is of short duration and it tends to disappear over time.

    Measurement of Drug Levels

    With the development of new interventional techniques for the management of patients with apparent resistance to therapy,85–89 such as renal denervation, 2 techniques have become increasingly used. The first is ambulatory BP monitoring to ascertain that BP is truly uncontrolled and the second is the measurement of drug levels to ascertain that one is facing a true resistance and not a pseudo-resistance because of poor adherence to therapy.90 The measurement of drugs in bodily fluids has taken advantage of the development of the high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, which has a very high specificity and sensitivity, and hence has been used to detect drugs in forensic laboratories and to screen for doping in sports.91–94 In the field of hypertension, the preference has been given to urine because of the noninvasive nature of the collection, though some groups are using blood levels. As of today, almost all antihypertensive medications or their metabolites can be detected in the urine. The complete absence of a medication in a sample guaranties that the medication has not been taken for a duration equivalent to several half-lives. Nevertheless, urinary as well as blood levels will depend on the pharmacological profile of the drug and on the patient’s ability to metabolize it. At last, as mentioned previously, drug levels provide a punctual assessment of poor adherence and do not reflect long-term persistence with antihypertensive therapy. In addition, the presence of a drug in plasma or urine may be affected by the white coat adherence, that is, the fact that adherence tends to improve during the days preceding and following a clinical term.95 Other limitations may be the cost, the need of an adequately equipped laboratory and finally the fact that patients may adapt their behavior, knowing that drug concentrations are measured at appointments.

    Directly Observed Technique

    Other approaches enable screening for poor adherence, one of them being the directly observed technique.96 With this approach, antihypertensive therapy is given under supervision of a member of the clinical staff every day for a certain period.97 This technique is effective but is logistically heavy, expensive and requires the patient to attend the hospital every day. In addition, it is not devoid of potential adverse effects as major episodes of hypotension may occur during the first days when the full prescribed treatment is given.96,98 Today, directly observed technique clinics have been organized in some countries to detect and support adherence.98

    Digital Medicines

    The latest technique to monitor drug adherence and identify poor adherence in various clinical settings was designed by Proteus Digital Health with the aim to provide feedback on drug adherence and could be called Digital Medicines.99 The system, which is now accepted by the Food and Drug Administration, consists of tiny (1.0×1.0×0.3 mm) ingestible sensors incorporated in the pill during the manufacturing process, which will be ingested by the patient. Once ingested, an electrochemical reaction will be triggered in the stomach leading to an activation of the sensor and generating a unique message coded for the medication name and dose to a wearable patch worn by the patient on the torso and record the date and time of the sensor ingestion. Thus, this technique combines the dosing history and the proof that the drug was ingested. The information collected by the patch is encrypted and transmitted wireless to a designated device using Bluetooth (Figure 2). Sensors are then eliminated as solid waste within 72 hours. Early clinical studies were conducted in several therapeutic areas including hypertension100,101 and the system was found to be safe regarding toxicology, mechanical, and electrical safety. In hypertensive patients uncontrolled with at least 2 antihypertensive agents, the use of the Proteus system was associated with significant decreases in BP (−9.7 mm Hg systolic and −5.0 mm Hg diastolic) and 32% of participants achieve BP targets of <140/90 mm Hg.101 In a larger trial involving patients with uncontrolled hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus,100 the use of the Proteus system for 4 or 12 weeks versus usual care was associated with better control of BP and glycemia but the average adherence rate was 86% during the 4 weeks and 84% in the 12 weeks groups, respectively. This suggest that the Proteus system may help improving drug adherence in some patients. However, whether it will be accepted in the real-world needs to be demonstrated. In addition, the system is not devoid of possible manipulations by patients at the level of the wearable patch, which needs to be replaced weekly. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Proteus system for the treatment of patients with mental disorders.

    Figure 2.

    Figure 2. Description of the Proteus system with an ingestible sensor transmitting the information to a mobile. Reprinted from Frias et al.100 Copyright ©2017 (see:

    Resistant Hypertension

    Although poor adherence can occur in all hypertensive patients whatever the number of drugs and the stage of hypertension, medication nonadherence is suspected mainly in clinical conditions where the prescribed treatment does not provide the expected reduction in BP. This is typically the case of apparent resistant hypertension.102–105 Indeed, when BP does not decrease despite the prescription of at least 3 drugs including a diuretic, physicians are confronted with 2 crucial questions: Is the patient a nonresponder to therapy or is the patient not taking drugs as recommended thus being a nonadherer? In this context, if poor adherence is the issue, adding new drugs will only aggravate the situation. Many recent surveys demonstrated that a high percentage of patients with apparent resistant hypertension are actually pseudo-resistant, the major issue being poor adherence to the prescribed therapy.88,93,106–109 The precise prevalence of partial or complete nonadherence to antihypertensive treatment in apparent resistant hypertension is difficult to estimate owing to the lack of robust definitions and gold-standard diagnostic methods. Therefore, as reviewed recently, the prevalence of poor adherence in resistant hypertension ranges between 7% and 87% in observational studies and clinical trials depending on the assessment tool.110 Using the MEMS, the prevalence of nonadherence in difficult to control patients ranges between 30% and 50%111,112 whereas using drug measurements in urine >50% of patients with apparent resistant hypertension are completely or partially nonadherent to the prescribed medications.110,113 Interestingly, data have also demonstrated that drug adherence varies over time, for example, before and after renal denervation, leading to unpredictable effects on clinical study results.114 Therefore, monitoring of drug adherence should be incorporated systematically in any drug or device development.113,115 Unfortunately, as of today, adherence to therapy remains largely underdiagnosed in clinical studies, despite the availability of adequate noninvasive methods and the situation is even worse in clinical practice where adherence is almost never measured.

    Health Consequences and Economic Impact of Suboptimal Adherence to Antihypertensive Medications

    The adverse impact of suboptimal adherence to antihypertensive medications is multi-fold (Table 4), and the untoward economic impact potentially large.

    Table 4. Consequences of Suboptimal Adherence to Antihypertensive Medications

    Adverse OutcomeReferences
     1. Uncontrolled hypertensionAbegaz et al,116 Butler et al,117 and Breekveldt-Postma et al118
     2. Progression to hypertensive crisisSaguner et al119
     3. Vascular stiffnessBerni et al120
     4. Left ventricular hypertrophyComberg et al121 and Bruno et al122
     5. MicroalbuminuriaKim et al123
     6. Myocardial infarctionMazzagliaet al,124 Corrao et al,125 Chowdhury et al,126 Herttuaet al,127 Yang et al,128 Perreault et al,129,130 and Breekveldt-Postma et al131
     7. StrokeMazzagliaet al,124 Corrao et al,125 Chowdhury et al,126 Herttuaet al,127 Yang et al,128 Perreault et al,129,130 and Breekveldt-Postma et al131
     8. Chronic heart failureMazzagliaet al,124 Corrao et al,125 Chowdhury et al,126 Herttuaet al,127 Yang et al,128 Perreault et al,129,130 and Breekveldt-Postma et al131
     9. Chronic kidney and end-stage renal diseaseCedillo-Couvert et al132 and Roy et al133
     10. Cognitive dysfunction, dementiaPoon et al134 and Vik et al135
     10. Excess emergency department and hospital admissionsHerttuaet al,127 Heaton et al,136 and Pittman et al137
     11. Reduced quality of lifeWiklund et al138
     12. Impaired work productivity, disabilityMokdad et al139 and Wagner et al140
     13. Increased healthcare costsPittman et al137, Iuga et al,141 Cherry et al,142 and Roebuck et al143
     14. DeathCherry et al142

    While the table may be perceived as splitting categories of adverse outcomes, it is important to recognize the broad impact of inadequately or untreated hypertension that can result from suboptimal adherence to effective prescription medications. Hopefully, the list will serve to raise the value of adherence from the perspective of clinicians and the patients they serve as well as healthcare payers and policy makers as integrative approaches are required to optimize adherence. There is, however, a caveat. Before amplifying items in Table 4, it is important to recognize the potential for overestimating the adverse effects of nonadherence. Evidence suggests that differences beyond BP reduction or hypertension control between more and less adherent patients may account for a substantial proportion of variance in adverse outcomes.7,144–146 For example, more adherent patients appear to generally have a more positive attitude toward preventive health measures, which could favorably impact multiple outcomes.7,144

    Health Consequences of Suboptimal Adherence

    The literature documents the multiple adverse clinical consequences of suboptimal adherence. The adverse effects include uncontrolled hypertension and hypertensive crises. Suboptimal adherence is also associated with various target organ changes linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular events, including vascular stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and microalbuminuria. Suboptimal adherence is also associated with multiple adverse cardiovascular events including acute coronary syndromes, stroke and transient ischemic attack and chronic heart failure as well as mortality.

    Uncontrolled Hypertension and Progression to More Severe Hypertension

    Evidence supports the notion that patients with controlled hypertension are more likely to adhere to antihypertensive pharmacotherapy than are individuals with uncontrolled BP.116,117 Conversely, patients staying on therapy are more likely to achieve long-term BP targets.118

    Hypertensive Crises

    Several of the initial randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in hypertension showed that treating hypertension reduced progression to more severely elevated levels of BP as well as accelerated and malignant hypertension.147,148 In a similar vein, more recently reports found that poor medication adherence was linked with the occurrence of hypertensive crises.119

    Vascular Stiffness

    Greater vascular stiffness, as measured by arterial pulse wave velocity, was associated with a clinically and statistically significant increase in the first occurrence of a major cardiovascular event (composite myocardial infarction, unstable angina, heart failure, or stroke).149 Low adherence to antihypertensive medications, in turn, was associated with increased arterial stiffness derived from 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.120

    Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

    Incident LVH by electrocardiography did not occur in either black or white adults with hypertension during the 5 years of stepped-care therapy in the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up Study. However, in the 7 years of follow after completing stepped-care therapy, LVH was a relatively common occurrence, especially among black adults.121 The authors noted specifically that adherence to antihypertensive medications declined substantially among black men during the follow-up period and viewed that fact as contributing to incident LVH. In another report, LVH by electrocardiography was significantly associated with poor adherence to antihypertensive medications before stroke among patients that suffered an acute stroke.122

    Microalbuminuria and Macroalbuminuria

    Among 40 473 Korean adults with hypertension, 2657 had urine albumin/creatinine ≥30 μg/mg including 499 with values ≥300 μg/mg. Low adherence to antihypertensive medications was independently associated with the presence of albuminuria.123

    Cardiovascular Events Including Acute Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Chronic Heart Failure

    In view of the association of poor adherence with uncontrolled hypertension, hypertensive crises, and several risk factors for cardiovascular disease, the association of suboptimal adherence with major adverse cardiovascular events is expected.124–130 Some reports included very large numbers of patients such as a meta-analysis with 1 978 919 unique patients and the Italian Lombardy Region with 242 594 newly treated hypertensives.125,126 Moreover, suboptimal adherence has also been associated with individual components of composite cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic heart failure.127,128,131

    Chronic Kidney Disease

    Suboptimal adherence to medications generally is associated with faster progression of chronic kidney disease.132 Moreover, suboptimal adherence to antihypertensive medications specifically is independently linked to greater risk for incident end-stage renal disease.133

    Cognitive Function and Dementia

    Cognitive dysfunction and dementia are well-recognized causes of poor adherence in elderly patients53,54 because they impair the abilities in planning, organising, and executing medication management task. Because BP control plays a role in the prevention of cognitive dysfunction and dementia,134 a good adherence to antihypertensive should be favorable. Studies have demonstrated that it is possible to improve drug adherence in patients with cognitive dysfunction or dementia, but none has really demonstrate a clear impact on the reduction of health outcomes.135

    Emergency Department and Hospital Admissions

    The US National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for 2005 to 2007 indicated that ≈13% of emergency department admissions were related to medication nonadherence. The likelihood of emergency department visits for hypertension was strongly related to nonadherence.136,137 In addition, >20% of emergency department admissions associated with nonadherence led to hospital admission compared with 12.7% unrelated to adherence. Other reports confirm that adults with suboptimal adherence to antihypertensive medication have more hospital admissions for cardiovascular-related events.127,137

    Reduced Quality of Life

    More intensive hypertension control to BP values below <140/<90 was associated with more serious adverse events attributable to more intensive therapy or lower BP levels.150,151 Yet, other data indicate that better hypertension control and greater adherence to BP medications are associated with a higher quality of life.138

    Disability and Reduced Work Productivity

    Ischemic heart disease was the leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years in the US during 1990 and 2016 with stroke 10th in 1990 and 12th in 2016.139 Uncontrolled hypertension is a major contributor to both events. Self-reported low adherence to antihypertensive medication was linked to higher levels of work impairment and presenteeism, that is, individual present but less productive.140

    Greater Healthcare Costs

    In the United States, suboptimal adherence is estimated to account for up to 10% of total healthcare costs.141 With regard to adherence and hypertension, among employees of a large manufacturer and their dependents <65 years old,142 hypertension-related healthcare costs were lower for individuals with 80% to 100% at $4871/y than the 4 groups with lower adherence (range $4878−$6062/y). Similarly, total healthcare costs for hypertensive adults with high adherence ($8386) were lower than for the other 4 lower adherence groups ($8929−$11 238). In another report,143 data on 112 757 hypertensive patients were obtained from a large pharmacy benefit manager. Annual medication costs were $429 greater for patients with high than low adherence but were associated with $3908 lower annual medical expenditures.

    Analysis of large claims database indicated that mean annual healthcare costs were lower for hypertensive patients with 80% to 100% adherence to BP medications ($7182, n=467 006) than for patients with 60% to 79% adherence ($7560, n=96 226) and <60% adherence ($7995, n=62 338).137 Patients with moderate and low adherence were more likely to have emergency department and hospital admissions for cardiovascular conditions than those with high adherence.

    In a model derived from observational data, both ideal and real-world adherence were linked with survival advantages. There was an estimated incremental cost of real world adherence over no adherence of $30 585 per life-year gained.137 While several reports suggest that suboptimal adherence generally and cardiovascular and hypertension medications specifically is associated with higher healthcare costs, other evidence indicates incremental cost per life-year gained.

    Clinical Management/Mitigation of Suboptimal Adherence

    Once poor adherence is detected, efforts should focus on implementing interventions to improve and maintain long-term adherence. This can be achieved using several different approaches, which concern not only patients but also physicians, health care systems and the medical therapy itself as already partly discussed in Suboptimal Adherence: Contributing and Associated Factors of this review and illustrated in Table 5. Despite the multiplicity of possible interventions, meta-analyses and systematic reviews on interventions to ameliorate adherence conducted between 1996 and 2014 tended to conclude that current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems were mostly complex, not very effective and with a minor effect size.152–155 In addition, it was difficult to demonstrate that one approach is better than another is at increasing adherence and combination of approaches appeared to be best.

    Table 5. Interventions That May Improve Drug Adherence in Hypertension

    Level of InterventionTypes of Interventions
    PhysiciansProvide information on the risks of hypertension and the benefits of treatment, as well as agreeing a treatment strategy to achieve and maintain BP control using lifestyle measures and a single-pill-based treatment strategy when possible.
    Distribute information material and use programmed learning, and computer-aided counselling.
    Empowerment of the patient
    Positive feedback on behavioral and clinical improvements
    Improvement in communication skills
    Assessment and resolution of individual barriers to adherence (provide clues)
    Collaboration with other healthcare providers, especially nurses and pharmacists
    PatientsSelf-monitoring of BP (including telemonitoring)
    Instruction combined with motivational strategies
    Self-management with simple patient-guided systems
    Use of reminders or week/mo organizers
    Obtain family, social, or nurse support
    Provision of drugs at worksite
    Group sessions
    Drug treatmentSimplification of the drug regimen
    Use single pill combinations
    Prefer long-acting drugs once a day
    Avoid high doses of drugs with adverse effects
    Health systemsAccessibility of drugs
    Reimbursement of single pill combinations
    Supporting the development of monitoring systems (electronic monitors, telephone, follow-up, home visits, and telemonitoring of home BP)
    Reduce copayments
    Financial support of the collaboration between healthcare providers (eg, pharmacists and nurses)
    Development of national databases, including prescription data, available for physicians and pharmacists

    BP indicates blood pressure.

    Nevertheless, more recently, some systematic reviews have identified interventions that demonstrated both improvements in adherence and clinical outcomes in the management of cardiovascular diseases.156 These were short message services (65% versus 13% of participants with high adherence in the intervention versus control group) and simplification of treatment regimens using single pill combinations (86% versus 65% adherence, risk ratio of being adherent, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.26–1.41). In this respect, improvement of adherence with the use of single pill combinations has been confirmed in a meta-analysis.157 In terms of pharmacotherapy, the future may be in the development of chemically synthesized compounds or vaccines able to interfere with an important regulatory system for several months. One example is the recent development of an interfering RNA designed to target the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) mRNA in hypercholesterolemic patients, which has been shown to lower cholesterol up to 6 months after a single injection.158

    The integration of community health worker-based interventions in a team-based care system is also improving drug adherence in this review (97% in the team-based care group compared with 92% in the control group; odds ratio=2.62, 95% CI, 1.32–5.19).156 This latter observation confirm previous experiments indicating that a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacists and nurses is effective in supporting adherence and improving BP in hypertensive patients.159–161 Unfortunately, this strategy is often limited by the difficulty to establish a collaboration between physicians and pharmacists and by the reimbursement of pharmacists’ activities through the health care system. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the team-based care has been questioned.162–164

    Devices integrated into the care delivery system and designed to record dosing events, such as the MEMS, were also found to be more frequently associated with a significantly improved adherence compared with other devices, with differences in mean adherence ranging from a decrease of 2.9% in the control group to an increase of 34.0% in monitored patients.165

    Among other useful interventions, one can cite that linking drug intake with habits, giving positive feedback to patients on adherence, self-monitoring of BP, using pill boxes and other special packaging, and motivational interviewing leading to patients’ empowerment.21 A greater involvement of pharmacists and nurses increases drug adherence and is now strongly recommended by hypertension guidelines.166 Recent data suggest that adherence to treatment may also be improved with the use of telemetry for transmission of recorded home values, maintaining contact between patients and physicians167–169 and with electronic prescription systems, which improve the initiation process.20

    One common observation, however, is that any technique used to detect poor adherence is also associated with improvement of adherence. This is the case with the electronic monitoring of adherence112 but also with the measurements of drug levels in plasma or urines.106,170 Thus, in a retrospective analysis of hypertensive patients attending specialist tertiary care centers in 2 European countries (United Kingdom and Czech Republic), nonadherent hypertensive patients responded to repeated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry biochemical analyses with an improved adherence and significant BP drops, which were correlated with the improvement in drug adherence.170

    At last, as discussed previously, one important step to improve patients’ adherence would be to reinforce the physicians’ communication skills and hence their ability to present the objectives of the therapy and to discuss the clinical importance of poor adherence in a nonjudgmental way. In 1976 already, Inui et al45 has demonstrated that adherence-trained physicians spend more time educating their patients, which results in an increased likelihood that their patients take at least 75% of the prescribed BP medications and reach BP targets. The empowerment of the patient is critical. In patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension, Naik et al171 found that shared-decision-making style and proactive communication demonstrated significant direct effects on hypertension control. Easier access to healthcare and reduction of treatment costs represent other clues to promote medication adherence and increase BP control.

    Taken together, available data show that there are several useful approaches to improve and support adherence to therapy in hypertension. However, one important aspect is that these approaches probably need to be combined to be most effective. A good example is the significant increase in BP control obtained in the Northern California Kaiser Permanente System between 2001 and 2009 (from 43 to almost 85%) with the implementation of a large-scale hypertension program.172 This latter included a comprehensive hypertension registry, the development and sharing of performance metrics, evidence-based guidelines, medical assistant visits for BP measurement, and the use of single-pill combination pharmacotherapy.172


    The global epidemic of hypertension is largely uncontrolled and the predominant risk factor for cardiovascular events, the leading cause of noncommunicable disease deaths worldwide. Treatment and control of hypertension prevent cardiovascular death. While a large proportion of uncontrolled hypertension is untreated, suboptimal adherence among treated adults is a major factor.

    Suboptimal adherence includes failure to initiate pharmacotherapy, to take medications as often as prescribed, and to persist on therapy long-term. The healthcare team can take several steps to improve patient adherence through shared-decision making on management, insuring patients understand the severity and consequences of their disease and benefits of treatment and control, facilitating BP self-monitoring with relay and advice, prescription of low-cost, effective medications, especially as single pill combinations, and frequent follow-up of patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

    Several categories of factors including demographic, socioeconomic, concomitant medical-behavioral conditions, therapy-related, healthcare team and system-related factors, and patient factors are associated with nonadherence. Understanding the categories of factors contributing to nonadherence is useful in managing nonadherence.

    Simple, low-cost screening tests can be useful for identifying nonadherent patients with uncontrolled hypertension and a low to moderate risk for cardiovascular events. Patients who have severe and treatment resistant hypertension, despite prescription of usually effective combination antihypertensive pharmacotherapy, have a higher probability of nonadherence. In these high risk patients, electronic or biochemical monitoring are useful for detecting nonadherence and for improving adherence. Increasing the availability and affordability of these more precise measures of adherence represent a future opportunity to realize more of the proven benefits of evidence-based medications. Despite challenges in overcoming nonadherence globally, in countries, such as Canada, Germany, and the United States, 70% to 85% of treated hypertensive patients have controlled BP, a proxy for adherence. Understanding and translating these successes provide opportunities for improving cardiovascular health worldwide.

    Despite the description of many new mechanisms involved in the pathophysiology of hypertension, few new drugs will arrive on the market in next years for improving the treatment of hypertension.173 The possible approval of device-based therapies for treating hypertension will perhaps reduce the clinical impact of poor-adherence but it will not suppress it, as in most device-based studies drugs were still necessary to control hypertension after the intervention.174 Therefore, it is important that healthcare providers focus their attention on how to do better with the drugs we have. This is the reason why recent guidelines have emphasize the important need to address drug adherence as a major issue in hypertension management.166,175

    Nonstandard Abbreviations and Acronyms


    blood pressure


    high income countries


    International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril trial


    low-middle–income countries


    left ventricular hypertrophy


    Medication Event Monitoring System


    proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9


    World Health Organization


    Correspondence to Michel Burnier, Service of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Rue du Bugnon 17, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland. Email


    • 1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data.Lancet. 2005; 365:217–223. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Mills KT, Bundy JD, Kelly TN, Reed JE, Kearney PM, Reynolds K, Chen J, He J. Global disparities of hypertension prevalence and control: a systematic analysis of population-based studies from 90 countries.Circulation. 2016; 134:441–450. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018912LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Lindenfeld J, Jessup M. ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them’ (C. Everett Koop, MD, US Surgeon General, 1985).Eur J Heart Fail. 2017; 19:1412–1413. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.920CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4. McDonald HP, Garg AX, Haynes RB. Interventions to enhance patient adherence to medication prescriptions: scientific review.JAMA. 2002; 288:2868–2879.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Vrijens B, Vincze G, Kristanto P, Urquhart J, Burnier M. Adherence to prescribed antihypertensive drug treatments: longitudinal study of electronically compiled dosing histories.BMJ. 2008; 336:1114–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39553.670231.25CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Hill MN, Miller NH, Degeest S, Materson BJ, Black HR, Izzo JL, Oparil S, Weber MA; American Society of Hypertension Writing Group. Adherence and persistence with taking medication to control high blood pressure.J Am Soc Hypertens. 2011; 5:56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2011.01.001CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Burnier M. Drug adherence in hypertension.Pharmacol Res. 2017; 125:142–149. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.08.015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Egan BM, Li J, Hutchison FN, Ferdinand KC. Hypertension in the United States, 1999 to 2012: progress toward healthy people 2020 goals.Circulation. 2014; 130:1692–1699. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010676LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Neuhauser HK, Adler C, Rosario AS, Diederichs C, Ellert U. Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in Germany 1998 and 2008-11.J Hum Hypertens. 2015; 29:247–253. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2014.82CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Schiffrin EL, Campbell NR, Feldman RD, Kaczorowski J, Lewanczuk R, Padwal R, Tobe SW. Hypertension in Canada: past, present, and future.Ann Glob Health. 2016; 82:288–299. doi: 10.1016/j.aogh.2016.02.006CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication.N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:487–497. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra050100CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Gossec L, Tubach F, Dougados M, Ravaud P. Reporting of adherence to medication in recent randomized controlled trials of 6 chronic diseases: a systematic literature review.Am J Med Sci. 2007; 334:248–254. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e318068dde8CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Burnier M, Wuerzner G. Drug adherence monitoring in clinical trials: a necessity for a correct assessment of the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive therapies.J Hypertens. 2015; 33:2395–2398. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000759CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Mancia G, Messerli F, Bakris G, Zhou Q, Champion A, Pepine CJ. Blood pressure control and improved cardiovascular outcomes in the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study.Hypertension. 2007; 50:299–305. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.090290LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Egan BM, Zhao Y, Axon RN, Brzezinski WA, Ferdinand KC. Uncontrolled and apparent treatment resistant hypertension in the United States, 1988 to 2008.Circulation. 2011; 124:1046–1058. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.030189LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Yoon SS, Gu Q, Nwankwo T, Wright JD, Hong Y, Burt V. Trends in blood pressure among adults with hypertension: United States, 2003 to 2012.Hypertension. 2015; 65:54–61. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04012LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Benetos A, Thomas F, Bean KE, Guize L. Why cardiovascular mortality is higher in treated hypertensives versus subjects of the same age, in the general population.J Hypertens. 2003; 21:1635–1640. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000084743.53355.9bCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. World Health Organization. Adherence to Long Term Therapies: Evidence for Action; Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003.Google Scholar
    • 19. Vrijens B, De Geest S, Hughes DA, Przemyslaw K, Demonceau J, Ruppar T, Dobbels F, Fargher E, Morrison V, Lewek P, Matyjaszczyk M, Mshelia C, Clyne W, Aronson JK, Urquhart J; ABC Project Team. A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012; 73:691–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04167.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Fischer MA, Choudhry NK, Brill G, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S, Hutchins D, Liberman JN, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. Trouble getting started: predictors of primary medication nonadherence.Am J Med. 2011; 124:1081.e9–1081.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.05.028CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Burnier M, Wuerzner G, Struijker-Boudier H, Urquhart J. Measuring, analyzing, and managing drug adherence in resistant hypertension.Hypertension. 2013; 62:218–225. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.00687LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Burnier M, Brede Y, Lowy A. Impact of prolonged antihypertensive duration of action on predicted clinical outcomes in imperfectly adherent patients: comparison of aliskiren, irbesartan and ramipril.Int J Clin Pract. 2011; 65:127–133. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02616.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Corrao G, Zambon A, Parodi A, Poluzzi E, Baldi I, Merlino L, Cesana G, Mancia G. Discontinuation of and changes in drug therapy for hypertension among newly-treated patients: a population-based study in Italy.J Hypertens. 2008; 26:819–824. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282f4edd7CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Caro JJ, Salas M, Speckman JL, Raggio G, Jackson JD. Persistence with treatment for hypertension in actual practice.CMAJ. 1999; 160:31–37.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Qvarnström M, Kahan T, Kieler H, Brandt L, Hasselström J, Bengtsson Boström K, Manhem K, Hjerpe P, Wettermark B. Persistence to antihypertensive drug treatment in Swedish primary healthcare.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013; 69:1955–1964. doi: 10.1007/s00228-013-1555-zCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Hasford J, Schröder-Bernhardi D, Rottenkolber M, Kostev K, Dietlein G. Persistence with antihypertensive treatments: results of a 3-year follow-up cohort study.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007; 63:1055–1061. doi: 10.1007/s00228-007-0340-2CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Mancia G, Parodi A, Merlino L, Corrao G. Heterogeneity in antihypertensive treatment discontinuation between drugs belonging to the same class.J Hypertens. 2011; 29:1012–1018. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834550d0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Moise N, Schwartz J, Bring R, Shimbo D, Kronish IM. Antihypertensive drug class and adherence: an electronic monitoring study.Am J Hypertens. 2015; 28:717–721. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu199CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Hasselström J, Zarrinkoub R, Holmquist C, Hjerpe P, Ljungman C, Qvarnström M, Wettermark B, Manhem K, Kahan T, Bengtsson Boström K. The Swedish Primary Care Cardiovascular Database (SPCCD): 74 751 hypertensive primary care patients.Blood Press. 2014; 23:116–125. doi: 10.3109/08037051.2013.814829CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Corrao G, Mancia G. Generating evidence from computerized healthcare utilization databases.Hypertension. 2015; 65:490–498. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04858LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Mazzaglia G, Mantovani LG, Sturkenboom MC, Filippi A, Trifirò G, Cricelli C, Brignoli O, Caputi AP. Patterns of persistence with antihypertensive medications in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in Italy: a retrospective cohort study in primary care.J Hypertens. 2005; 23:2093–2100.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 32. Halpern MT, Khan ZM, Schmier JK, Burnier M, Caro JJ, Cramer J, Daley WL, Gurwitz J, Hollenberg NK. Recommendations for evaluating compliance and persistence with hypertension therapy using retrospective data.Hypertension. 2006; 47:1039–1048. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000222373.59104.3dLinkGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Raebel MA, Schmittdiel J, Karter AJ, Konieczny JL, Steiner JF. Standardizing terminology and definitions of medication adherence and persistence in research employing electronic databases.Med Care. 2013; 51:S11–S21. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1d2aCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Gellad WF, Grenard JL, Marcum ZA. A systematic review of barriers to medication adherence in the elderly: looking beyond cost and regimen complexity.Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2011; 9:11–23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2011.02.004CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Steiner JF, Ho PM, Beaty BL, Dickinson LM, Hanratty R, Zeng C, Tavel HM, Havranek EP, Davidson AJ, Magid DJ, Estacio RO. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics are not clinically useful predictors of refill adherence in patients with hypertension.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009; 2:451–457. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.841635LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Egan BM, Li J, Small J, Nietert PJ, Sinopoli A. The growing gap in hypertension control between insured and uninsured adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988 to 2010.Hypertension. 2014; 64:997–1004. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04276LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Schoenthaler A, Chaplin WF, Allegrante JP, Fernandez S, Diaz-Gloster M, Tobin JN, Ogedegbe G. Provider communication effects medication adherence in hypertensive African Americans.Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 75:185–191. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.018CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Ryan D, Carr A. A study of the differential effects of Tomm’s questioning styles on therapeutic alliance.Fam Process. 2001; 40:67–77.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39. Roumie CL, Greevy R, Wallston KA, Elasy TA, Kaltenbach L, Kotter K, Dittus RS, Speroff T. Patient centered primary care is associated with patient hypertension medication adherence.J Behav Med. 2011; 34:244–253. doi: 10.1007/s10865-010-9304-6CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Ratanawongsa N, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Couper MP, Van Hoewyk J, Powe NR. Race, ethnicity, and shared decision making for hyperlipidemia and hypertension treatment: the DECISIONS survey.Med Decis Making. 2010; 30:65S–76S. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10378699CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Lauffenburger JC, Shrank WH, Bitton A, Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Krumme AA, Matlin OS, Pezalla EJ, Spettell CM, Brill G, Choudhry NK. Association between patient-centered medical homes and adherence to chronic disease medications: a cohort study.Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166:81–88. doi: 10.7326/M15-2659CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Proia KK, Thota AB, Njie GJ, Finnie RK, Hopkins DP, Mukhtar Q, Pronk NP, Zeigler D, Kottke TE, Rask KJ, Lackland DT, Brooks JF, Braun LT, Cooksey T; Community Preventive Services Task Force. Team-based care and improved blood pressure control: a community guide systematic review.Am J Prev Med. 2014; 47:86–99. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.004CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Weiner SJ, Schwartz A, Sharma G, Binns-Calvey A, Ashley N, Kelly B, Dayal A, Patel S, Weaver FM, Harris I. Patient-centered decision making and health care outcomes: an observational study.Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158:573–579. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00001CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44. Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC, Stewart E, Jaén C. Transforming physician practices to patient-centered medical homes: lessons from the national demonstration project.Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30:439–445. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0159CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 45. Inui TS, Yourtee EL, Williamson JW. Improved outcomes in hypertension after physician tutorials. A controlled trial.Ann Intern Med. 1976; 84:646–651.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 46. Egan BM, Bandyopadhyay D, Shaftman SR, Wagner CS, Zhao Y, Yu-Isenberg KS. Initial monotherapy and combination therapy and hypertension control the first year.Hypertension. 2012; 59:1124–1131. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.194167LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 47. Lauffenburger JC, Landon JE, Fischer MA. Effect of combination therapy on adherence among US patients initiating therapy for hypertension: a cohort study.J Gen Intern Med. 2017; 32:619–625. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3972-zCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 48. Yeaw J, Benner JS, Walt JG, Sian S, Smith DB. Comparing adherence and persistence across 6 chronic medication classes.J Manag Care Pharm. 2009; 15:728–740. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.9.728CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 49. Wong MC, Tam WW, Wang HH, Cheung CS, Tong EL, Cheung NT, Leeder SR, Griffiths SM. Duration of initial antihypertensive prescription and medication adherence: a cohort study among 203,259 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.Int J Cardiol. 2015; 182:503–508. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.12.058CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 50. Taitel M, Fensterheim L, Kirkham H, Sekula R, Duncan I. Medication days’ supply, adherence, wastage, and cost among chronic patients in Medicaid.Medicare Medicaid Res Rev. 2012; 2:mmrr.002.03.a04.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 51. Choudhry NK, Fischer MA, Avorn J, Liberman JN, Schneeweiss S, Pakes J, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. The implications of therapeutic complexity on adherence to cardiovascular medications.Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171:814–822.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 52. Eze-Nliam CM, Thombs BD, Lima BB, Smith CG, Ziegelstein RC. The association of depression with adherence to antihypertensive medications: a systematic review.J Hypertens. 2010; 28:1785–1795. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32833b4a6fCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 53. Siegel D, Lopez J, Meier J. Antihypertensive medication adherence in the department of veterans affairs.Am J Med. 2007; 120:26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.06.028CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 54. Mulhem E, Lick D, Varughese J, Barton E, Ripley T, Haveman J. Adherence to medications after hospital discharge in the elderly.Int J Family Med. 2013; 2013:901845. doi: 10.1155/2013/901845CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 55. Holt EW, Muntner P, Joyce CJ, Webber L, Krousel-Wood MA. Health-related quality of life and antihypertensive medication adherence among older adults.Age Ageing. 2010; 39:481–487. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq040CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 56. Miller NH. Compliance with treatment regimens in chronic asymptomatic diseases.Am J Med. 1997; 102:43–49.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 57. Gwadry-Sridhar FH, Manias E, Lal L, Salas M, Hughes DA, Ratzki-Leewing A, Grubisic M. Impact of interventions on medication adherence and blood pressure control in patients with essential hypertension: a systematic review by the ISPOR medication adherence and persistence special interest group.Value Health. 2013; 16:863–871. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1631CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 58. Bokhour BG, Kressin NR. What is in a name? How biomedical language may derail patient understanding of hypertension.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015; 8:452–454. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001662LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 59. Morrison VL, Holmes EA, Parveen S, Plumpton CO, Clyne W, De Geest S, Dobbels F, Vrijens B, Kardas P, Hughes DA. Predictors of self-reported adherence to antihypertensive medicines: a multinational, cross-sectional survey.Value Health. 2015; 18:206–216. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.013CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 60. Krousel-Wood MA, Muntner P, Joyce CJ, Islam T, Stanley E, Holt EW, Morisky DE, He J, Webber LS. Adverse effects of complementary and alternative medicine on antihypertensive medication adherence: findings from the cohort study of medication adherence among older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010; 58:54–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02639.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 61. Brown CM, Segal R. The effects of health and treatment perceptions on the use of prescribed medication and home remedies among African American and white American hypertensives.Soc Sci Med. 1996; 43:903–917.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 62. Axon RN, Bradford WD, Egan BM. The role of individual time preferences in health behaviors among hypertensive adults: a pilot study.J Am Soc Hypertens. 2009; 3:35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2008.08.005CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 63. Bradford WD. The association between individual time preferences and health maintenance habits.Med Decis Making. 2010; 30:99–112. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09342276CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 64. Elliott RA, Shinogle JA, Peele P, Bhosle M, Hughes DA. Understanding medication compliance and persistence from an economics perspective.Value Health. 2008; 11:600–610. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00304.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 65. Fischer MA, Stedman MR, Lii J, Vogeli C, Shrank WH, Brookhart MA, Weissman JS. Primary medication non-adherence: analysis of 195,930 electronic prescriptions.J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25:284–290. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1253-9CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 66. Corrao G, Conti V, Merlino L, Catapano AL, Mancia G. Results of a retrospective database analysis of adherence to statin therapy and risk of nonfatal ischemic heart disease in daily clinical practice in Italy.Clin Ther. 2010; 32:300–310. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.02.004CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 67. Naderi SH, Bestwick JP, Wald DS. Adherence to drugs that prevent cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis on 376,162 patients.Am J Med. 2012; 125:882–7.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.12.013CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 68. Meddings J, Kerr EA, Heisler M, Hofer TP. Physician assessments of medication adherence and decisions to intensify medications for patients with uncontrolled blood pressure: still no better than a coin toss.BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12:270. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-270CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 69. Nguyen TM, La Caze A, Cottrell N. What are validated self-report adherence scales really measuring?: a systematic review.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014; 77:427–445. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12194CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 70. Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, Ward HJ. Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting.J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008; 10:348–354.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 71. Hamilton GA. Measuring adherence in a hypertension clinical trial.Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2003; 2:219–228. doi: 10.1016/S1474-5151(03)00058-6CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 72. Blaschke TF, Osterberg L, Vrijens B, Urquhart J. Adherence to medications: insights arising from studies on the unreliable link between prescribed and actual drug dosing histories.Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012; 52:275–301. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-011711-113247CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 73. Paterson DL, Swindells S, Mohr J, Brester M, Vergis EN, Squier C, Wagener MM, Singh N. Adherence to protease inhibitor therapy and outcomes in patients with HIV infection.Ann Intern Med. 2000; 133:21–30.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 74. Dobbels F, De Geest S, van Cleemput J, Droogne W, Vanhaecke J. Effect of late medication non-compliance on outcome after heart transplantation: a 5-year follow-up.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004; 23:1245–1251. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2003.09.016CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 75. Bhatia S, Landier W, Hageman L, et al. Systemic exposure to thiopurines and risk of relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a Children’s Oncology Group Study.JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1:287–295. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0245CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 76. Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, D’Agostino R, Flack JM, Katzen BT, Leon MB, Liu M, Mauri L, Negoita M, Cohen SA, Oparil S, Rocha-Singh K, Townsend RR, Bakris GL; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Investigators. A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1393–1401. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402670CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 77. Breckenridge A, Aronson JK, Blaschke TF, Hartman D, Peck CC, Vrijens B. Poor medication adherence in clinical trials: consequences and solutions.Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017; 16:149–150. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.1CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 78. Chertow GM, Block GA, Correa-Rotter R, Drüeke TB, Floege J, Goodman WG, Herzog CA, Kubo Y, London GM, Mahaffey KW, Mix TC, Moe SM, Trotman ML, Wheeler DC, Parfrey PS; EVOLVE Trial Investigators. Effect of cinacalcet on cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing dialysis.N Engl J Med. 2012; 367:2482–2494. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205624CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 79. Vrijens B, Urquhart J. Methods for measuring, enhancing, and accounting for medication adherence in clinical trials.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014; 95:617–626. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2014.59CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 80. Christensen A, Osterberg LG, Hansen EH. Electronic monitoring of patient adherence to oral antihypertensive medical treatment: a systematic review.J Hypertens. 2009; 27:1540–1551. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32832d50efCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 81. Wetzels G, Nelemans P, van Wijk B, Broers N, Schouten J, Prins M. Determinants of poor adherence in hypertensive patients: development and validation of the “Maastricht Utrecht Adherence in Hypertension (MUAH)-questionnaire”.Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 64:151–158. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.12.010CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 82. Wetzels GE, Nelemans PJ, Schouten JS, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Stoffers HE, Janknegt R, de Leeuw PW, Prins MH. Electronic monitoring of adherence as a tool to improve blood pressure control. A randomized controlled trial.Am J Hypertens. 2007; 20:119–125. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2006.07.018CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 83. Bramley TJ, Gerbino PP, Nightengale BS, Frech-Tamas F. Relationship of blood pressure control to adherence with antihypertensive monotherapy in 13 managed care organizations.J Manag Care Pharm. 2006; 12:239–245. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2006.12.3.239CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 84. Mallion JM, Baguet JP, Siche JP, Tremel F, de Gaudemaris R. Compliance, electronic monitoring and antihypertensive drugs.J Hypertens Suppl. 1998; 16:S75–S79.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 85. Bhatt DL, Bakris GL. Renal denervation for resistant hypertension.N Engl J Med. 2014; 371:184. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1405677MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 86. Lobo MD, Sobotka PA, Stanton A, et al; ROX CONTROL HTN Investigators. Central arteriovenous anastomosis for the treatment of patients with uncontrolled hypertension (the ROX CONTROL HTN study): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2015; 385:1634–1641. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62053-5CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 87. Ott C, Lobo MD, Sobotka PA, et al. Effect of arteriovenous anastomosis on blood pressure reduction in patients with isolated systolic hypertension compared with combined hypertension.J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5:e004234.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 88. Persu A, Jin Y, Baelen M, et al; European Network Coordinating research on REnal Denervation Consortium. Eligibility for renal denervation: experience at 11 European expert centers.Hypertension. 2014; 63:1319–1325. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03194LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 89. Victor RG. Carotid baroreflex activation therapy for resistant hypertension.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015; 12:451–463. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2015.96CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 90. Burnier M, Wuerzner G. Ambulatory blood pressure and adherence monitoring: diagnosing pseudoresistant hypertension.Semin Nephrol. 2014; 34:498–505. doi: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2014.08.003CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 91. Hamdidouche I, Jullien V, Boutouyrie P, Billaud E, Azizi M, Laurent S. Routine urinary detection of antihypertensive drugs for systematic evaluation of adherence to treatment in hypertensive patients.J Hypertens. 2017; 35:1891–1898. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001402CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 92. Pitt JJ. Principles and applications of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in clinical biochemistry.Clin Biochem Rev. 2009; 30:19–34.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 93. Tomaszewski M, White C, Patel P, Masca N, Damani R, Hepworth J, Samani NJ, Gupta P, Madira W, Stanley A, Williams B. High rates of non-adherence to antihypertensive treatment revealed by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HP LC-MS/MS) urine analysis.Heart. 2014; 100:855–861. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305063CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 94. Strauch B, Petrák O, Zelinka T, Rosa J, Somlóová Z, Indra T, Chytil L, Marešová V, Kurcová I, Holaj R, Wichterle D, Widimský JPrecise assessment of noncompliance with the antihypertensive therapy in patients with resistant hypertension using toxicological serum analysis.J Hypertens. 2013; 31:2455–2461. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283652c61CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 95. Cramer JA, Scheyer RD, Mattson RH. Compliance declines between clinic visits.Arch Intern Med. 1990; 150:1509–1510.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 96. Hjornholm U, Aamodt M, Larstorp AC, Fadl Elmula M, Hoieggen A, Andersen MH, Kjeldsen SE. Directly Observed Therapy in Hypertension (DOT-HTN). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2018.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 97. Fadl Elmula FE, Hoffmann P, Larstorp AC, Fossum E, Brekke M, Kjeldsen SE, Gjønnæss E, Hjørnholm U, Kjaer VN, Rostrup M, Os I, Stenehjem A, Høieggen A. Adjusted drug treatment is superior to renal sympathetic denervation in patients with true treatment-resistant hypertension.Hypertension. 2014; 63:991–999. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03246LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 98. Hameed MA, Tebbit L, Jacques N, Thomas M, Dasgupta I. Non-adherence to antihypertensive medication is very common among resistant hypertensives: results of a directly observed therapy clinic.J Hum Hypertens. 2016; 30:83–89. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2015.38CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 99. Belknap R, Weis S, Brookens A, Au-Yeung KY, Moon G, DiCarlo L, Reves R. Feasibility of an ingestible sensor-based system for monitoring adherence to tuberculosis therapy.PLoS One. 2013; 8:e53373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053373CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 100. Frias J, Virdi N, Raja P, Kim Y, Savage G, Osterberg L. Effectiveness of digital medicines to improve clinical outcomes in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and type 2 diabetes: prospective, open-label, cluster-randomized pilot clinical trial.J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19:e246. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7833CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 101. Naik R, Macey N, West RJ, Godbehere P, Thurston S, Fox R, Xiang W, Kim YA, Singh I, Leadley S, DiCarlo LA. First use of an ingestible sensor to manage uncontrolled blood pressure in primary practice: the UK hypertension registry.J Community Med Health Educ. 2017; 7:506.Google Scholar
    • 102. Bunker J, Callister W, Chang CL, Sever PS. How common is true resistant hypertension?J Hum Hypertens. 2011; 25:137–140. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2010.108CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 103. Burnier M. Managing ‘resistance’: is adherence a target for treatment?Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2014; 23:439–443. doi: 10.1097/MNH.0000000000000045CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 104. Judd E, Calhoun DA. Apparent and true resistant hypertension: definition, prevalence and outcomes.J Hum Hypertens. 2014; 28:463–468. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2013.140CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 105. Kumar N, Calhoun DA, Dudenbostel T. Management of patients with resistant hypertension: current treatment options.Integr Blood Press Control. 2013; 6:139–151. doi: 10.2147/IBPC.S33984MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 106. Brinker S, Pandey A, Ayers C, Price A, Raheja P, Arbique D, Das SR, Halm EA, Kaplan NM, Vongpatanasin W. Therapeutic drug monitoring facilitates blood pressure control in resistant hypertension.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63:834–835. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.067CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 107. Hamdidouche I, Jullien V, Laurent S, Azizi M. Detecting nonadherence to antihypertensive treatment: any time, anywhere?Hypertension. 2017; 70:257–258. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.09739LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 108. Jung O, Gechter JL, Wunder C, Paulke A, Bartel C, Geiger H, Toennes SW. Resistant hypertension? Assessment of adherence by toxicological urine analysis.J Hypertens. 2013; 31:766–774. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835e2286CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 109. Muntner P, Davis BR, Cushman WC, Bangalore S, Calhoun DA, Pressel SL, Black HR, Kostis JB, Probstfield JL, Whelton PK, Rahman M; ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Treatment-resistant hypertension and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and end-stage renal disease: results from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).Hypertension. 2014; 64:1012–1021. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03850LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 110. Hamdidouche I, Jullien V, Boutouyrie P, Billaud E, Azizi M, Laurent S. Drug adherence in hypertension: from methodological issues to cardiovascular outcomes.J Hypertens. 2017; 35:1133–1144. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001299CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 111. Bertholet N, Favrat B, Fallab-Stubi CL, Brunner HR, Burnier M. Why objective monitoring of compliance is important in the management of hypertension.J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2000; 2:258–262.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 112. Burnier M, Schneider MP, Chioléro A, Stubi CL, Brunner HR. Electronic compliance monitoring in resistant hypertension: the basis for rational therapeutic decisions.J Hypertens. 2001; 19:335–341.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 113. Berra E, Azizi M, Capron A, Høieggen A, Rabbia F, Kjeldsen SE, Staessen JA, Wallemacq P, Persu A. Evaluation of adherence should become an integral part of assessment of patients with apparently treatment-resistant hypertension.Hypertension. 2016; 68:297–306. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07464LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 114. Schmieder RE, Ott C, Schmid A, Friedrich S, Kistner I, Ditting T, Veelken R, Uder M, Toennes SW. Adherence to antihypertensive medication in treatment-resistant hypertension undergoing renal denervation.J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5:e002343.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 115. Mahfoud F, Bohm M, Azizi M, et al. Proceedings from the European clinical consensus conference for renal denervation: considerations on future clinical trial design.Eur Heart J. 2015; 36:2219–2227.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 116. Abegaz TM, Shehab A, Gebreyohannes EA, Bhagavathula AS, Elnour AA. Nonadherence to antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e5641. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005641CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 117. Butler MJ, Tanner RM, Muntner P, Shimbo D, Bress AP, Shallcross AJ, Sims M, Ogedegbe G, Spruill TM. Adherence to antihypertensive medications and associations with blood pressure among African Americans with hypertension in the Jackson Heart Study.J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017; 11:581.e5–588.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2017.06.011CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 118. Breekveldt-Postma NS, Penning-van Beest FJ, Siiskonen SJ, Koerselman J, Klungel OH, Falvey H, Vincze G, Herings RM. Effect of persistent use of antihypertensives on blood pressure goal attainment.Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24:1025–1031. doi: 10.1185/030079908X280554CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 119. Saguner AM, Dür S, Perrig M, Schiemann U, Stuck AE, Bürgi U, Erne P, Schoenenberger AW. Risk factors promoting hypertensive crises: evidence from a longitudinal study.Am J Hypertens. 2010; 23:775–780. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2010.71CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 120. Berni A, Ciani E, Cecioni I, Poggesi L, Abbate R, Boddi M. Adherence to antihypertensive therapy affects Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index.Eur J Intern Med. 2011; 22:93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2010.07.015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 121. Comberg HU, Knowles M, Tyroler HA, Heyden S, Hames CG, Sabo D. Status of patients seven years after completion of the hypertension detection and follow-up program in Evans County, Georgia.J Natl Med Assoc. 1988; 80:1285–1292.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 122. Bruno A, Brooks DD, Abrams TA, Poorak MD, Gunio D, Kandhal PK, Lakhanpal A, Nagabandi AK, Akinwuntan AE, Looney S, Schafer PE. Left ventricular hypertrophy in acute stroke patients with known hypertension.Clin Exp Hypertens. 2017; 39:502–504. doi: 10.1080/10641963.2016.1259328CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 123. Kim YS, Kim HS, Oh HY, Lee MK, Kim CH, Kim YS, Wu D, Johnson-Levonas AO, Oh BH. Prevalence of microalbuminuria and associated risk factors among adult Korean hypertensive patients in a primary care setting.Hypertens Res. 2013; 36:807–823. doi: 10.1038/hr.2013.44CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 124. Mazzaglia G, Ambrosioni E, Alacqua M, Filippi A, Sessa E, Immordino V, Borghi C, Brignoli O, Caputi AP, Cricelli C, Mantovani LG. Adherence to antihypertensive medications and cardiovascular morbidity among newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.Circulation. 2009; 120:1598–1605. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.830299LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 125. Corrao G, Parodi A, Nicotra F, Zambon A, Merlino L, Cesana G, Mancia G. Better compliance to antihypertensive medications reduces cardiovascular risk.J Hypertens. 2011; 29:610–618. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328342ca97CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 126. Chowdhury R, Khan H, Heydon E, Shroufi A, Fahimi S, Moore C, Stricker B, Mendis S, Hofman A, Mant J, Franco OH. Adherence to cardiovascular therapy: a meta-analysis of prevalence and clinical consequences.Eur Heart J. 2013; 34:2940–2948. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht295CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 127. Herttua K, Tabák AG, Martikainen P, Vahtera J, Kivimäki M. Adherence to antihypertensive therapy prior to the first presentation of stroke in hypertensive adults: population-based study.Eur Heart J. 2013; 34:2933–2939. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht219CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 128. Yang Q, Chang A, Ritchey MD, Loustalot F. Antihypertensive medication adherence and risk of cardiovascular disease among older adults: a population-based cohort study.J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6:e006056.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 129. Perreault S, Dragomir A, Roy L, White M, Blais L, Lalonde L, Bérard A. Adherence level of antihypertensive agents in coronary artery disease.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 69:74–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03547.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 130. Perreault S, Dragomir A, White M, Lalonde L, Blais L, Bérard A. Better adherence to antihypertensive agents and risk reduction of chronic heart failure.J Intern Med. 2009; 266:207–218.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 131. Breekveldt-Postma NS, Penning-van Beest FJ, Siiskonen SJ, Falvey H, Vincze G, Klungel OH, Herings RM. The effect of discontinuation of antihypertensives on the risk of acute myocardial infarction and stroke.Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24:121–127. doi: 10.1185/030079908X253843CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 132. Cedillo-Couvert EA, Ricardo AC, Chen J, et al; CRIC Study Investigators. Self-reported Medication Adherence and CKD Progression.Kidney Int Rep. 2018; 3:645–651. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2018.01.007CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 133. Roy L, White-Guay B, Dorais M, Dragomir A, Lessard M, Perreault S. Adherence to antihypertensive agents improves risk reduction of end-stage renal disease.Kidney Int. 2013; 84:570–577. doi: 10.1038/ki.2013.103CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 134. Poon IO. Effects of antihypertensive drug treatment on the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment.Pharmacotherapy. 2008; 28:366–375. doi: 10.1592/phco.28.3.366CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 135. Vik SA, Maxwell CJ, Hogan DB. Measurement, correlates, and health outcomes of medication adherence among seniors.Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38:303–312. doi: 10.1345/aph.1D252CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 136. Heaton PC, Tundia NL, Luder HR. U.S. emergency departments visits resulting from poor medication adherence: 2005-07.J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2013; 53:513–519. doi: 10.1331/JAPhA.2013.12213CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 137. Pittman DG, Tao Z, Chen W, Stettin GD. Antihypertensive medication adherence and subsequent healthcare utilization and costs.Am J Manag Care. 2010; 16:568–576.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 138. Wiklund I, Halling K, Rydén-Bergsten T, Fletcher A. Does lowering the blood pressure improve the mood? Quality-of-life results from the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study.Blood Press. 1997; 6:357–364.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 139. Mokdad AH, Ballestros K, Echko M, et al; US Burden of Diseases Collaborators. The State of US Health, 1990–2016: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors among US states.JAMA. 2018; 319:1444–1472. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0158CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 140. Wagner S, Lau H, Frech-Tamas F, Gupta S. Impact of medication adherence on work productivity in hypertension.Am J Pharm Benefits. 2012; 4:e88–e96.Google Scholar
    • 141. Iuga AO, McGuire MJ. Adherence and health care costs.Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2014; 7:35–44. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S19801MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 142. Cherry SB, Benner JS, Hussein MA, Tang SS, Nichol MB. The clinical and economic burden of nonadherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients.Value Health. 2009; 12:489–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00447.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 143. Roebuck MC, Liberman JN, Gemmill-Toyama M, Brennan TA. Medication adherence leads to lower health care use and costs despite increased drug spending.Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30:91–99. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1087CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 144. Simpson SH, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, Padwal RS, Tsuyuki RT, Varney J, Johnson JA. A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality.BMJ. 2006; 333:15. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38875.675486.55CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 145. Granger BB, Swedberg K, Ekman I, Granger CB, Olofsson B, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, Michelson EL, Pfeffer MA; CHARM investigators. Adherence to candesartan and placebo and outcomes in chronic heart failure in the CHARM programme: double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial.Lancet. 2005; 366:2005–2011. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67760-4CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 146. LaFleur J, Nelson RE, Sauer BC, Nebeker JR. Overestimation of the effects of adherence on outcomes: a case study in healthy user bias and hypertension.Heart. 2011; 97:1862–1869. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2011.223289CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 147. Veterans AdministrationCooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 115 through 129 mm Hg.JAMA. 1967; 202:1028–1034.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 148. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. II. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 90 through 114 mm Hg.JAMA. 1970; 213:1143–1152.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 149. Mitchell GF, Hwang SJ, Vasan RS, Larson MG, Pencina MJ, Hamburg NM, Vita JA, Levy D, Benjamin EJ. Arterial stiffness and cardiovascular events: the Framingham Heart Study.Circulation. 2010; 121:505–511. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.886655LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 150. Wright JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control.N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:2103–2116.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 151. Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, Goff DC, Grimm RH, Cutler JA, Simons-Morton DG, Basile JN, Corson MA, Probstfield JL, Katz L, Peterson KA, Friedewald WT, Buse JB, Bigger JT, Gerstein HC and Ismail-Beigi F. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:1575–1585.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 152. Glynn LG, Murphy AW, Smith SM, Schroeder K, Fahey T. Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;March 17 (3):Cd005182.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 153. Nieuwlaat R, Wilczynski N, Navarro T, et al. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; Nov 20 (11):CD000011.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 154. Schroeder K, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. How can we improve adherence to blood pressure-lowering medication in ambulatory care? Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:722–732. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.7.722CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 155. Schroeder K, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; (2):Cd004804.Google Scholar
    • 156. Fuller RH, Perel P, Navarro-Ruan T, Nieuwlaat R, Haynes RB, Huffman MD. Improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.Heart. 2018; 104:1238–1243. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312571CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 157. Gupta AK, Arshad S, Poulter NR. Compliance, safety, and effectiveness of fixed-dose combinations of antihypertensive agents: a meta-analysis.Hypertension. 2010; 55:399–407. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.139816LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 158. Ray KK, Landmesser U, Leiter LA, Kallend D, Dufour R, Karakas M, Hall T, Troquay RP, Turner T, Visseren FL, Wijngaard P, Wright RS, Kastelein JJ. Inclisiran in patients at high cardiovascular risk with elevated LDL cholesterol.N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1430–1440. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1615758CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 159. Rudd P, Miller NH, Kaufman J, Kraemer HC, Bandura A, Greenwald G, Debusk RF. Nurse management for hypertension. A systems approach.Am J Hypertens. 2004; 17:921–927. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.06.006CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 160. Santschi V, Chiolero A, Burnand B, Colosimo AL, Paradis G. Impact of pharmacist care in the management of cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171:1441–1453. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.399CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 161. Santschi V, Chiolero A, Colosimo AL, Platt RW, Taffé P, Burnier M, Burnand B, Paradis G. Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Am Heart Assoc. 2014; 3:e000718. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000718LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 162. Brunenberg DE, Wetzels GE, Nelemans PJ, Dirksen CD, Severens JL, Stoffers HE, Schouten JS, Prins MH, de Leeuw PW, Joore MA. Cost effectiveness of an adherence-improving programme in hypertensive patients.Pharmacoeconomics. 2007; 25:239–251. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725030-00006CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 163. Chapman RH, Ferrufino CP, Kowal SL, Classi P, Roberts CS. The cost and effectiveness of adherence-improving interventions for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs*.Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64:169–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02196.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 164. Van Zuilen AD, Wetzels JF, Bots ML, Van Blankestijn PJ; MASTERPLAN Study Group. MASTERPLAN: study of the role of nurse practitioners in a multifactorial intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in chronic kidney disease patients.J Nephrol. 2008; 21:261–267.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 165. Checchi KD, Huybrechts KF, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Electronic medication packaging devices and medication adherence: a systematic review.JAMA. 2014; 312:1237–1247. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.10059CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 166. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, et al; Authors/Task Force Members:. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension.J Hypertens. 2018; 36:1953–2041. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001940CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 167. Omboni S, Gazzola T, Carabelli G, Parati G. Clinical usefulness and cost effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring: meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.J Hypertens. 2013; 31:455–467; discussion 467. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835ca8ddCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 168. Parati G, Torlasco C, Omboni S, Pellegrini D. Smartphone applications for hypertension management: a potential game-changer that needs more control.Curr Hypertens Rep. 2017; 19:48. doi: 10.1007/s11906-017-0743-0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 169. Albini F, Xiaoqiu Liu, Torlasco C, Soranna D, Faini A, Ciminaghi R, Celsi A, Benedetti M, Zambon A, di Rienzo M, Parati G. An ICT and mobile health integrated approach to optimize patients’ education on hypertension and its management by physicians: the Patients Optimal Strategy of Treatment(POST) pilot study.Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016; 2016:517–520. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2016.7590753MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 170. Gupta P, Patel P, Štrauch B, et al. Biochemical screening for nonadherence is associated with blood pressure reduction and improvement in adherence.Hypertension. 2017; 70:1042–1048. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.09631LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 171. Naik AD, Kallen MA, Walder A, Street RLImproving hypertension control in diabetes mellitus: the effects of collaborative and proactive health communication.Circulation. 2008; 117:1361–1368. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.724005LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 172. Jaffe MG, Lee GA, Young JD, Sidney S, Go AS. Improved blood pressure control associated with a large-scale hypertension program.JAMA. 2013; 310:699–705. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.108769CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 173. Oparil S, Schmieder RE. New approaches in the treatment of hypertension.Circ Res. 2015; 116:1074–1095. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303603LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 174. Kjeldsen SE, Esler MD. Take a blood pressure pill or undergo renal denervation?Lancet. 2018; 391:2298–2300. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31126-7CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 175. Whelton PK, Carey RM. The 2017 clinical practice guideline for high blood pressure.JAMA. 2017; 318:2073–2074. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.18209CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar


    eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.

    Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.