What is the prevalence of resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations?
Resistant hypertension is a frequent phenomenon, affecting approximately 13-16% of treated hypertensive populations, though true resistance is often difficult to distinguish from pseudo-resistance.
BACKGROUND: Although treatment-resistant hypertension (RH) is a serious burden on population health, there exists uncertainty about its prevalence. Hence, the objectives of this work were to systematically review and critically appraise the literature and to conduct a meta-analysis on the prevalence of RH in treated hypertensive populations. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CRD York databases, and study bibliographies were systematically searched for observational and interventional studies that report disease frequency in adult populations. The pooled prevalence was obtained through random-effect modeling. Furthermore, quality assessment, publication bias diagnostics, meta-regression, subgroup analysis by sex, and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Out of 318 retrieved studies, 20 observational studies and 4 randomized control trials (RCTs) with a total population of 961,035 were included. The random-effect method for observational studies and RCTs yielded RH prevalence ratios of 13.72% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 11.19%-16.24%) and 16.32% (95% CI = 10.68%-21.95%), respectively. Yet, most studies were incapable of ruling out pseudo-resistance caused by white-coat effect, poor medication adherence, and suboptimal dosing. Differences in RH prevalence by sex were negligible. Meta-regression analysis showed that study-level characteristics had no statistically significant influence on RH prevalence. The inclusion of further studies in the sensitivity analysis concurred with the baseline results (13.19%; 95% CI = 10.89%-15.49%). CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should enhance comparability of future empirical evidence through homogeneous methodologies and comparable baseline populations. This meta-analysis concludes that RH is a frequent phenomenon and further harmonization in terms of RH definition and measurement would be necessary to clearly distinguish true treatment resistance from pseudo-resistance.
Achelrod et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: