Major disparities in patient-reported adherence compared to objective assessment of adherence using mass spectrometry: A prospective study in a tertiary-referral hypertension clinic.

AIM: Many challenges exist in determining true rates of adherence to antihypertensive medications among individuals in a clinic setting. For the first time, we aimed to compare patient-reported antihypertensive adherence with objective evidence using mass spectrometry spot urinalysis in a tertiary referral clinic setting. METHODS: A prospective observational single-centre cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral hypertension clinic, encompassing antihypertensive initiation and persistence. Patients were referred with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension or for suspected secondary causes. Participants completed a self-reported assessment of antihypertensive adherence and provided a spot urine sample. The presence of antihypertensive medications and/or their respective metabolites was evaluated using high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Patients were determined to be adherent if they demonstrated both self-reported adherence and objective mass spectrometry evidence. RESULTS: Of all 105 eligible participants initially recruited, 73 (69.5%) met the eligibility criteria. Only 27.4% (95% confidence interval 0.2-0.4) of participants demonstrated true adherence to their self-reported antihypertensives, despite 75.3% (0.6-0.8) reporting adherence. Greatest medication adherence was achieved with angiotensin II receptor blockers (61%), with calcium-channel blockers and mineralocorticoid antagonists demonstrating least adherence (38%). CONCLUSION: In patients attending a tertiary hypertension clinic, the combined use of spot urine mass spectrometry and self-reporting identifies higher rates of nonadherence when compared to either modality alone. Both techniques should be combined for more accurate detection of medication adherence.

Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.

Aspirin's antithrombotic effects have a long-established place in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and its traditional use as a core therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is well recognized. However, with the advent of newer antiplatelet agents and an increasing understanding of aspirin's bleeding risks, its role across the full spectrum of modern CVD prevention has become less certain. As a consequence, recent trials have begun investigating aspirin-free strategies in secondary prevention. For example, a contemporary metanalysis of trials that assessed P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus prolonged (≥ 12 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (which includes aspirin) after percutaneous coronary intervention reported a lower risk of major bleeding and no increase in stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the P2Y12 monotherapy group. In contrast to secondary prevention, aspirin's role in primary prevention has always been more controversial. While historical trials reported a reduction in MI and stroke, more contemporary trials have suggested diminishing benefit for aspirin in this setting, with no reduction in hard outcomes, and some primary prevention trials have even indicated a potential for harm. In this review, we discuss how changing population demographics, enhanced control of lipids and blood pressure, changes in the definition of outcomes like MI, evolution of aspirin formulations, and updated clinical practice guidelines have all impacted the use of aspirin for primary and secondary CVD prevention.