Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations

Standard

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations. / Achelrod, Dmitrij; Wenzel, Ulrich; Frey, Simon.

In: AM J HYPERTENS, Vol. 28, No. 3, 03.2015, p. 355-61.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Review articleResearch

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{b9527240ad2c44f9a1be56fbb1248901,
title = "Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use, Humans, Hypertension/drug therapy, Observational Studies as Topic, Prevalence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Failure",
author = "Dmitrij Achelrod and Ulrich Wenzel and Simon Frey",
note = "{\textcopyright} American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2014. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.",
year = "2015",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1093/ajh/hpu151",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "355--61",
journal = "AM J HYPERTENS",
issn = "0895-7061",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of resistant hypertension in treated hypertensive populations

AU - Achelrod, Dmitrij

AU - Wenzel, Ulrich

AU - Frey, Simon

N1 - © American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2014. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

PY - 2015/3

Y1 - 2015/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use

KW - Humans

KW - Hypertension/drug therapy

KW - Observational Studies as Topic

KW - Prevalence

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Treatment Failure

U2 - 10.1093/ajh/hpu151

DO - 10.1093/ajh/hpu151

M3 - SCORING: Review article

C2 - 25156625

VL - 28

SP - 355

EP - 361

JO - AM J HYPERTENS

JF - AM J HYPERTENS

SN - 0895-7061

IS - 3

ER -