Abstract
Background
In the treatment of hypertension, physicians’ attitudes and practice patterns are receiving increased attention as contributors to poor blood pressure (BP) control. Thus, current use of antihypertensive drugs in primary care was analyzed and the association with selected physician and patient characteristics was assessed.
Methods
The Hypertension and Diabetes Risk Screening and Awareness (HYDRA) study is a cross-sectional point prevalence study of 45,125 primary care attendees recruited from a representative nationwide sample of 1912 primary care practices in Germany. Prescription frequencies of the various antihypertensive drugs in the individual patients were recorded by the physicians using standardized questionnaires. We assessed the association of patient variables [age, gender; co-morbidities such as diabetes, nephropathy or coronary heart disease (CHD)] and physician variables (general practitioner vs internist, guideline adherence, etc.) with drug treatment intensity and prescription patterns.
Results
Of all 43,549 patients for whom a physician diagnosis on hypertension or diabetes was available, 17,485 (40.1%) had hypertension. Of these hypertensive patients, 1647 (9.4%) received no treatment at all, 1191 (6.8%) received non-pharmacological measures only, and 14,647 (83.8%) were given one or more antihypertensive drugs. Drug treatment rates were lower in young patients (16–40 years: 57.4%). BP control was poor: 70.6% of all patients were not normalized, i.e., had BP ≥140/90 mmHg. Antihypertensive treatment was generally intensified with increasing age, or if complications or comorbidities were present. The use of the different drug classes was rather uniform across the various patient subgroups (e.g., by age and gender). Individualized treatment with regard to co-morbidities as recommended in guidelines was not the rule. Adherence to guidelines as self-reported by physicians as well as other physician characteristics (region, training etc.) did not result in more differentiated prescription pattern.
Conclusions
Despite the broad armamentarium of drug treatment options, physicians in primary care did not treat hypertension aggressively enough. Treatment was only intensified at a late stage, after complications had occurred. Treatment should be more differentiated in terms of coexisting morbidities such as diabetes, nephropathy, or CHD.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schappert SM, Nelson C (1999) National ambulatory medical care survey: 1995–96 summary. Vital and health statistics, series 13, no. 142. DHHS Government Printing Office, Washington
Pittrow D, Wittchen H, Kirch W (2003) Hypertension and diabetes care among primary care doctors in Germany: results from an epidemiological cross-sectional study. In: Kirch W (ed) Public health in Europe. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 203–218
Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN (2000) Self-reported hypertension treatment practices among primary care physicians: blood pressure thresholds, drug choices, and the role of guidelines and evidence-based medicine. Arch Intern Med 160:2281–2286
Guidelines committee (2003) European society of hypertension–European society of cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 21:1011–1053
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR et al (2003) The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 289:2560–2572
Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Banegas JR et al (2003) Hypertension prevalence and blood pressure levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States. JAMA 289:2363–2369
Alexander M, Tekawa I, Hunkeler E et al (1999) Evaluating hypertension control in a managed care setting. Arch Intern Med 159:2673–2677
Stockwell D, Madhavan S, Cohen H, Gibson G, Alderman M (1994) The determinants of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in an insured population. Am J Public Health 84:1768–1774
Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN (2001) Characteristics of patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the United States. N Engl J Med 345:479–486
Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC et al (1998) Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 339:1957–1963
Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN, Vallbona C (2000) Physician role in lack of awareness and control of hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2:324–330
Wittchen H, Krause P, Höfler M et al (2003) Objective, design and methodology of the hypertension and diabetes risk screening and awareness (HYDRA) study. Fortschr Med 121[Suppl 1]:2–11
National Institute of Mental Health (1976) Clinical global impressions. In: Guy W (ed) ECDEU assessment for psychopharmacology. National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, pp 221–227
Sharma A, Wittchen H, Kirch W et al (2004) High prevalence and poor control of hypertension in primary care—cross sectional study. J Hypertens 22:1–9
Joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (1997) The sixth report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Arch Intern Med 157:2413–2446
Guidelines subcommittee (1999) 1999 World health organization—international society of hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension. J Hypertens 17:151–183
Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC et al (1998) Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults. The third national health and nutrition examination survey, 1988–1994. Diabetes Care 21:518–524
Gerber L, Johnston K, Alderman M (1998) Assessment of a new dipstick test in screening for microalbuminuria in patients with hypertension. Am J Hypertens 11:1321–1327
Piehlmeier W, Renner R, Schramm W et al (1999) Screening of diabetic patients for microalbuminuria in primary care—the PROSIT project. Proteinuria screening and intervention. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 107:244–251
Anonymous (2000) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 894:i–xii, pp 1–253
McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, London
Royall RM (1986) Model robust confidence intervals using maximum likelihood estimators. Int Stat Rev 54:221–226
Thamm M (1999) Blood pressure in Germany—current status and trends. Gesundheitswesen 61[Suppl]:S90–S93
Epstein M, Sowers J (1992) Diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Hypertension 19:403–418
Grossman E, Messerli FH, Goldbourt U (2000) High blood pressure and diabetes mellitus: are all antihypertensive drugs created equal? Arch Intern Med 160:2447–2452
Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers S et al (1998) Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the hypertension optimal treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT study group. Lancet 351:1755–1762
Hansson L, Lindholm L, Ekbom T, et al (1999) Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish trial in old patients with hypertension-2 study. Lancet 354:1751–1756
UK prospective diabetes study group (1998) Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 317:703–713
Sowers JR, Epstein M, Frohlich ED (2001) Diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease: an update. Hypertension 37:1053–1059
Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, Glickman M, Friedman R, Kader B (2003) Hypertension management in patients with diabetes: the need for more aggressive therapy. Diabetes Care 26:355–359
The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group (2000) Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs chlorthalidone: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 283:1967–1975
Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney MF, Tarlov AR (1995) Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 274:1436–1444
Pickering TG (2003) Lifestyle modification and blood pressure control: is the glass half full or half empty? JAMA 289:2131–2132
Chobanian AV (2001) Control of hypertension—an important national priority. N Engl J Med 345:534–535
Kizer JR, Kimmel SE (2001) Epidemiologic review of the calcium channel blocker drugs: an up-to-date perspective on the proposed hazards. Arch Intern Med 161:1145–1158
Gress TW, Nieto FJ, Shahar E, Wofford MR, Brancati FL (2000) Hypertension and antihypertensive therapy as risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Atherosclerosis risk in communities study. N Engl J Med 342:905–912
Williams B (2003) Drug treatment of hypertension. BMJ 326:61–62
Phillips L, Branch W, Cook C et al (2001) Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 135:825–834
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant of Sanofi-Synthelabo, Berlin, Germany.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pittrow, D., Kirch, W., Bramlage, P. et al. Patterns of antihypertensive drug utilization in primary care. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 60, 135–142 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-004-0731-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-004-0731-6