Why the study?
Determining true rates of antihypertensive adherence in clinic settings is challenging, prompting a comparison of patient-reported adherence with objective mass spectrometry spot urinalysis.
Does objective assessment using mass spectrometry spot urinalysis identify different rates of antihypertensive medication adherence compared to patient self-reporting in treatment-resistant hypertension?
Population
73 patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension or suspected secondary causes in a tertiary referral clinic
Comparison
Patient-reported adherence vs objective mass spectrometry spot urinalysis
Design
Prospective observational single-centre cohort study
Key result
Objective assessment using mass spectrometry revealed that only 27.4% of patients demonstrated true adherence to antihypertensives, compared to 75.3% who self-reported adherence.
Authors
Loading...
Self-reported adherence substantially overestimates true rates; leaves open whether routine objective testing improves resistant hypertension management.
Cohort (n=73)
No
Does objective assessment using mass spectrometry spot urinalysis identify different rates of antihypertensive medication adherence compared to patient self-reporting in treatment-resistant hypertension?
Absolute Event Rate: 27.4% vs 75.3%
Objective mass spectrometry urinalysis reveals that true adherence to antihypertensive medications is drastically lower than patient self-reporting suggests in patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension.
Curneen et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension or suspected secondary causes (n=73). Mass spectrometry spot urinalysis vs. Self-reported assessment was evaluated on Adherence to antihypertensive medications. Objective assessment using mass spectrometry revealed that only 27.4% of patients demonstrated true adherence to antihypertensives, compared to 75.3% who self-reported adherence.