Health-related quality of life during treatment of elderly patients with hypertension: Results from Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE)

Journal of Human Hypertension

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 239-245

  Degl'Innocenti, Alessio ^a   Elmfeldt, D ^a,b   Hofman, A ^c   Lithell, H ^b   Olofsson, B ^a   Skoog, I ^d   Trenkwalder, P ^e   Zanchetti, A ^f   Wiklund, I ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^e LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Candesartan; Elderly; Health related quality of life; Hypertension

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; CALCIUM ANTAGONIST; CANDESARTAN; DIURETIC AGENT; PLACEBO;

AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE REGULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COGNITION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DIZZINESS; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GROUPS BY AGE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VALIDATION PROCESS; WELLBEING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; BENZIMIDAZOLES; BLOOD PRESSURE; COGNITION; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EUROPE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE; HYPERTENSION; MALE; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; TETRAZOLES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 16544380286     PISSN: 09509240     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001657     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Falk M. Compliance with treatment and the art of medicine. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88: 668-669.
2. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 835-840.
3. Wiklund I. Aspects of quality of life in gastrointestinal disease. Some methodological issues. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995; 30(Suppl 208): 129-132.
4. Ren XS et al. Identifying patient and physician characteristics that affect compliance with antihypertensive medications. J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 27: 47-56.
5. Waeber B, Burnier M, Brunner HR. Compliance with antihypertensive therapy. Clin Exp Hypertens 1999; 21: 973-985.
6. Wallander AM, Dimenäs E, Svärdsudd K, Wiklund I. Evaluation of three methods of symptom reporting in a clinical trial of felodipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 41: 187-196.
7. Belcher G et al. Candesartan cilexetil: safety and tolerability in healthy volunteers and patients with hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1997; 11(Suppl 2): S85-S89.
8. Easthope SE, Jarvis B. Candesartan cilexetil: an update of its use in essential hypertension. Drugs 2002; 62: 1253-1287.
9. Malmqvist K, Kahan T, Dahl M. Angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockade in hypertensive women: benefits of candesartan cilexetil versus enalapril or hydrochlorothiazide. Am J Hypertens 2000; 13: 504-511.
10. Hansson L et al. Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). Blood Press 1999; 8: 177-183.
11. Lithell H et al. The Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). Principal results from a randomised double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 875-886.
12. Dupuy HJ. The Psychological General Well-being (PGWB) Index. In: Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CF, Elinson J (eds). Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Le Jacq Publishing Inc: New York, 1984, pp 170-183.
13. Dimenäs E, Dahlöf C, Olofsson B, Wiklund I. An instrument for quantifying subjective symptoms among untreated and treated hypertensives: development and documentation. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol 1990; 4: 205-217.
14. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 490-502.
15. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 503-520.
16. Degl'Innocenti A et al. Cognitive function and health-related quality of life in elderly patients with hypertension - baseline data from the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). Blood Press 2002; 11: 157-165.
17. Hjemdahl P, Wiklund Ik. Quality of life on antihypertensive drug therapy: scientific end-point or marketing exercise? J Hypertens 1992; 10: 1437-1446.
18. Steiner SS et al. Antihypertensive therapy and quality of life: a comparison of atenolol, captopril, enalapril and propranolol. J Hum Hypertens 1990; 4: 217-225.
19. Wiklund I, Halling K, Ryden-Bergsten T, Fletcher A. Does lowering the blood pressure improve the mood? Quality-of-life results from the hypertension optimal treatment (HOT) study. Blood Press 1997; 6: 357-364.
20. Neaton JD et al. Treatment of mild hypertension study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group [comment]. JAMA 1993; 270: 713-724.
21. Van Hoof R, Amery A, Fagard R, Staessen J. Quality of life during treatment of hypertensive patients with diuretics. Acta Cardiol 1990; 45: 393-401.
22. Peart WS et al. Adverse reactions to bendrofluazide and propranolol for the treatment of mild hypertension. Report of Medical Research Council Working Party on Mild to Moderate Hypertension. Lancet 1981; 2: 539-543.
23. Hansson L. The hypertension optimal treatment study (the HOT study). Blood Press 1993; 2: 62-68.
24. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-87.
25. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 419-423.
26. Man-Son-Hing M et al. Warfarin for atrial fibrillation. The patient's perspective. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1841-1848.
27. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14: 109-114.
28. Juniper EF. Quality of life questionnaires: does statistically significant = clinically important? [letter; comment]. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998; 102: 16-17.
29. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-415.
30. Juniper EF et al. Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 35-46.
31. Juniper EF et al. Measuring quality of life in the parents of children with asthma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 27-34.
32. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Ferrie PJ. Interpretation of rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire data. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 98: 843-845.
33. Murawski MM, Miederhoff PA. On the generalizability of statistical expressions of health related quality of life instrument responsiveness: a data synthesis. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 11-22.
34. Guyatt GH et al. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998; 316: 690-693.