MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DRUG ADHERENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS MATTER IN PATIENTS WITH RESISTANT HYPERTENSION - YES BUT WHICH ONES?

2022· article· en· W4282943668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marco Pappaccogli, Coralie M.G. Georges, Géraldine Petit, Sabrina Ritscher, Marilucy Lopez‐Sublet, Elvira Fanelli, Franco Rabbia, Pierre Wallemacq, Philippe de Timary, Stefan W. Toennes, Alexandre Persu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrugResistant hypertensionIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePharmacologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Altered psychological profiles are associated with drug adherence and drug resistance in patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN). However, treatment resistance may also result from increased arterial stiffness and target organ damage. The aim of this study was to assess the association of psychological factors with both drug adherence and drug resistance in two subtypes of patients with RHTN: younger patients without cardiovascular complications versus older or vascular patients. Design and method: Ninety-seven patients with RHTN were enrolled and split in two groups: patients 60y or older or with previous cardiovascular diseases (VRHTN), and younger patients without cardiovascular complications (NVRHTN). Drug adherence was assessed by urinary Liquid Chromatography coupled with tandem Mass Spectrometry. Drug resistance was evaluated by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure adjusted for the number of antihypertensive drugs and drug adherence. Psychological profile was assessed using five validated questionnaires: the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) and the Post Traumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS). Results: The proportion of fully adherent, partly adherent, and totally non-adherent patients was significantly different between NVRHTN (37, 39 and 24%) and VRHTN (67, 26 and 7 %) respectively (p-value = 0.010). After multiple regression analysis, independent predictors of poor drug adherence in NVRHTN were “adaptive strategies’’, male gender and family history of hypertension, accounting for 39.2% of the variability. Independent predictors of drug resistance were difficulties in planification and somatization, accounting for 39.0% of the variability. In the VRHTN group, predictors of drug adherence were yearly number of visits at the emergency department for hypertension and family history of cardiovascular events, accounting for 28.1% of the variability in drug adherence. Predictors of drug resistance were the number of visits at the emergency department and the total number of drugs prescribed per day, accounting for 35.0% of the variability in drug resistance. Conclusions: Poor drug adherence and altered psychological profiles appear to play a major role in younger patients with RHTN without cardiovascular complications. This subset of patients should be prioritized for assessment of drug adherence and psychological evaluation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207