This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

40/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Low antihypertensive medication adherence is common. During recent years, the impact of low medication adherence on increased morbidity and healthcare costs has become more recognized, leading to interventions aimed at improving adherence. We analyzed a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries initiating antihypertensive medication between 2007 and 2012 to assess whether reductions occurred in discontinuation and low adherence. Discontinuation was defined as having no days of antihypertensive medication supply for the final 90 days of the 365 days after initiation. Low adherence was defined as having a proportion of days covered <80% during the 365 days after initiation among beneficiaries who did not discontinue treatment. Between 2007 and 2012, 41 135 Medicare beneficiaries in the 5% sample initiated antihypertensive medication. Discontinuation was stable during the study period (21.0% in 2007 and 21.3% in 2012; P-trend=0.451). Low adherence decreased from 37.4% in 2007 to 31.7% in 2012 (P-trend<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the relative risk of low adherence for beneficiaries initiating treatment in 2012 versus in 2007 was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.92). Low adherence was more common among racial/ethnic minorities, beneficiaries with Medicaid buy-in (an indicator of low income), and those with polypharmacy, and was less common among females, beneficiaries initiating antihypertensive medication with multiple classes or a 90-day prescription fill, with dementia, a history of stroke, and those who reached the Medicare Part D coverage gap in the previous year. In conclusion, low adherence to antihypertensive medication has decreased among Medicare beneficiaries; however, rates of discontinuation and low adherence remain high.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Tajeu, G. S., Kent, S. T., Kronish, I. M., Huang, L., Krousel-Wood, M., Bress, A. P., et al. (2016). Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Discontinuation and Low Adherence Among Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Treatment From 2007 to 2012. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979). https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.116.07720

Vancouver

Tajeu GS, Kent ST, Kronish IM, Huang L, Krousel-Wood M, Bress AP, et al. Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Discontinuation and Low Adherence Among Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Treatment From 2007 to 2012. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979). 2016. doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.116.07720. PMID: 27432867.

BibTeX

@article{tajeu2016-27432867,
  author  = {Tajeu, G. S. and Kent, S. T. and Kronish, I. M. and Huang, L. and Krousel-Wood, M. and Bress, A. P. and Shimbo, D. and Muntner, P.},
  title   = {{Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Discontinuation and Low Adherence Among Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Treatment From 2007 to 2012}},
  journal = {Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1161/hypertensionaha.116.07720},
  pmid    = {27432867},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.116.07720}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “21.0%; 21.3%; 37.4%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

After multivariable adjustment, the relative risk of low adherence for beneficiaries initiating treatment in 2012 versus in 2007 was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.92).
In conclusion, low adherence to antihypertensive medication has decreased among Medicare beneficiaries; however, rates of discontinuation and low adherence remain high.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Effect size21.0%; 21.3%; 37.4%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 40/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979))
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27432867)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	23 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total	40 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Drug development from nearby years

Also in Drug development

126 studies in the library are filed under Drug development with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Drug development hub.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →