Hypertension Treatment in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome and/or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Analysis of the Therapy Effectivity and the Therapeutic Inertia in Outpatient Study.

Abstract

We have analysed the database of 1,595 consecutive patients visiting our department of cardiology and internal medicine clinic in 2005–2014. The analysis included 13,990 visit records, and the average number of visits per patient was 8.5 ± 7.0. Our goals were to evaluate the effectivity of hypertension treatment as for drug choice, decrease of sBP and dBP associated with a certain drug, a drug combination, and therapeutic inertia in patients with metabolic syndrome and/or diabetes mellitus. The final number of patients for analysis who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for interpenetration of both diagnostic circles was 570. Results. 15% of patients were treated using hypertension monotherapy, 70% of patients were treated using 2- to 4-drug combination therapy, and 15% of patients were treated using 5- to 6-drug combination. The drugs used most frequently were perindopril (perin), nitrendipine (nitre), amlodipine (amlo), telmisartan (telmi), hydrochlorothiazide (hydro), rilmenidine, and nebivolol (used in >100 patients). The most significant decrease of sBP was associated with treatment by nitre, hydro, telmi, and urapidil (>19 mmHg). The most significant decrease of dBP was associated with treatment by nitre, hydro, telmi, and verapamil (>10 mmHg). The most significant decrease of both sBP and dBP was associated with treatment using 3-drug combination of telmi + hydro + spironolactone (41 and 16 mmHg, resp.), telmi + hydro + nitre (34 and 15 mmHg, resp.), and telmi + hydro + urapidil (34 and 15 mmHg, resp.). At the last visit, 281 out of 413 patients at the first visit had sBP >140 mmHg (68%); that is, sBP control was 32%. At the last visit, 76 patients out of 217 at the first visit had dBP >90 mmHg (35%); that is, dBP control was 65%. Therapeutic inertia was calculated by evaluating the proportion of visits at which sBP was above the target for eligible visits minus the proportion of visits where the change was made in antihypertensive treatment (AHT), either medication type or dose, over the number of eligible visits, with the resultant value multiplied by the mean of the difference between the actual sBP and the target value at clinic visits. TIQ was counted at first 200 consecutive patients, and the average value was 57.30 ± 147.20. Conclusion. The study presents the real-life data concerning the difficulties in hypertension treatment in patients with concomitant metabolic syndrome and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. sBP was controlled at 32% patients only. The study results allow evaluating the effectivity of hypertension treatment as for drug choice, decrease of sBP and dBP associated with a certain drug, a drug combination, and therapeutic inertia in these patients.