The link between adherence to antihypertensive medications and mortality rates in patients with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) significantly contributes to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis specifically investigates how different levels of adherence to antihypertensive therapy (AHT) affect mortality rates in HTN patients. By synthesizing cohort studies, it aims to enhance understanding and inform clinical practices to improve outcomes in hypertensive populations. METHODS: Our meta-analysis employed a comprehensive search strategy using keywords related to hypertension, medical adherence, and mortality across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to July 2024. The eligibility criteria focused on cohort studies linking AHT adherence to mortality. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias (ROB). Quantitative analyses involved hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI), with an 80% adherence threshold. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also conducted using STATA-17 to explore various outcome factors. RESULTS: From initial 1,999 studies 12 cohort studies included in our analysis. All included studies had low ROB score. A meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 2,198,311 patient with HTN revealed that poor adherence to treatment significantly increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.32 [1.14, 1.51], p < 0.001) with high heterogeneity (I²: 98.73%). Additionally, an analysis of four studies with 1,695,872 patients indicated that low adherence was linked to elevated cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.61 [1.43, 1.78], p < 0.001), showing moderate heterogeneity (I²: 49.51%). CONCLUSIONS: The study found that poor adherence to AHT significantly increases overall and cardiovascular mortality risk, underscoring the need for improved compliance strategies. Limitations like inconsistent definitions, observational biases, and varying follow-up durations necessitate further research to validate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it