The Management of Hypertension: A Clinical Dilemma with Health Policy Implications

  • M. H. Alderman
  • B. Lamport

Abstract

Analysis of benefit, cost, and efficacy have become increasingly prominent in discussions of health care. As the presentations in this working conference demonstrate, it is always important to preface any discussion with a clear statement of the perspective from which the issue is viewed. Even such purists as economists, health planners, and clinicians may find that their scientific clarity is sometimes distorted by an unappreciated bias. Thus, I would like to state at the outset that my analysis of antihypertensive therapy is from the perspective of the clinician at the point of encounter with the individual patient. While health economists may talk of utility and cost of life years gained with a precision born of detachment, the personal encounter physician enjoys not such luxury. The commitment to his or her patient is absolute. While not unmindful of cost and cost efficacy calculations, the physician at the point of contact is most likely to be influenced by his perception of optimal clinical practice. Furthermore, in that setting, it is my belief that this is exactly what the patient would expect.

Keywords

Placebo Pneumonia Assure Expense Propranolol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Final report of the subcommittee on definition and prevalence of the 1984 joint national committee. Hypertension prevalence and status of awareness, treatment, and control in the United States. Hypertension 1985; 7: 457–468Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1985. Monthly vital statistics 1987; 36 (5 suppl): 23Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Weinstein, M.C., Stason, W.B.: Economic consideration in the management of mild hypertension. Ann NY Acad Sci 1978; 424–436Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    Weinstein, M.C., Stason, W.B.: Cost-effectiveness of intervention to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. Ann Rev Public Health 1985; 6: 41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    Alderman, M.H., Madhavan, S.: Management of the hypertensive patient: A continuing dilemma. Hypertension 1981; 3: 192–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    Veteran Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effect of treatment on morbidity: results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 115 through 129 mmHg. JAMA 1967; 202: 1028–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    Alderman, M.H.: The epidemiology of hypertension: etiology, natural history, and the impact of therapy. Cardiovasc. Rev. Rep 1980; 1: 509–519Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    Alderman, M.H.: Mild Hypertension: a national approach to clinical management. Einstein Quarterly 1986; 4: 18–20Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    Stason, W.B.: Opportunities for improving the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment. Am J Med 1986; 81 (suppl 6C): 45 - 49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    McLemore, T., Delozier, J. 1985 summary: national ambulatory medical care survey. Advance data 1987; N128: 1–8Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    Baum, C., Kennedy, D.L., Forbes, M.B., Jones, J.K.: Drug use and expenditures in 1982. JAMA 1985; 253: 382–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    Medical Research Council Working Party. MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. B Med J 1985; 291: 97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (13).
    Schoenberger, J.A.: Benefits and risks of drug therapy in essential hypertension. In: Drayer, J.I. et al. (eds.). Drug Therapy in hypertension. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel 1987: 45–56Google Scholar
  14. (14).
    Stevens, R.D., Bingley, L.J., Boger, M. et al.: Variability in the management of hypertension and cost-effectiveness: methodology, community care results and potential cost reductions. Soc Sci Med 1984; 18: 767–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. (15).
    Hollenberg, N.K.: Cardiovascular therapeutics in the 1980s: “An ounce of prevention…”. Am J Med 1987; 82 (suppl 3A): 1–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. (16).
    A report by the Management Committee of the Australian Therapeutic Trial in Mild Hypertension. Untreated mild hypertension. Lancet 1982; 1: 185–191Google Scholar
  17. (17).
    Alderman, M.H., Davis, T.K. Gerber, L.M., Robb, M.: Antihypertensive drug therapy withdrawal in a general population. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 1309–1311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. (18).
    Dannenberg, A.L., Kannel, W.B.: Remission of hypertension. The natural history of blood pressure treatment in the Framingham study. JAMA 1987; 257: 1477–1483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. (19).
    Alderman, M.H.: The variation in risk among hypertensive patients. In: Laragh JH et al. (eds.): Frontiers in Hypertension Research. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981; 11–14Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    Alderman, M.H., Ochs, D.S.: Treatment of hypertension at the university medical clinic. Arch Intern Med 1977; 137: 1707–1710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. (21).
    Engelland, A.L., Alderman, M.H., Powell, H.B.: Blood pressure control in private practice. Am J Public Health 1979; 69: 25–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. (22).
    Alderman, M.H., Stanback, M.E.: Hypertension detection and management through the worksite in the United States. In: Bulpitt, C.J. (ed.); Handbook of Hypertension, Vol. 6: Epidemiology of Hypertension. Elsevier Science Publishers BV; 1985; 373–386Google Scholar
  23. (23).
    Alderman, M.H., Madhavan, S., Davis, T.K.: Reduction of Cardiovascular disease events by worksite hypertension treatment. Hypertension 1983; 5 (suppl 5): V138–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. (24).
    The HDFP Cooperative Research Group. Mortality findings for stepped-care and referred-care participants in the HDFP, stratified by other risk factors. Rev Med 1985; 14: 312–335Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Alderman
  • B. Lamport

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations