Adherence to medication is known to have an impact on blood pressure control, and patients often hesitate to take their oral medication when the number of tablets is large [16]. Our results suggest that the reduction in the number Dinaciclib of drugs and beginning a treatment using new drugs might have caused improvements in both adherence and blood pressure. From the perspective of medical economics, our survey also suggested that switching to combination drugs may lead to a reduction of medical expenses. Based on previous reports, combination therapy using both ARB and CCB has also been shown to be more cost-effective in treating hypertension than monotherapy using

CCB or ARB [17]. The prices of combined drugs containing ARB and CCB have been set as low as approximately 70 % of the total price of each monotherapy, thus switch to combination drugs could be even more cost-effective. However, since our study included the patients whose medical costs are totally covered by government, thus this might explain the discrepancies between the ratio

of patients with decreased cost and ratio of patients who answered “medication-related expenses decreased”. In our patients, no major adverse effects were observed, including severe hypotension, rapid deterioration of renal functions, and electrolyte disorders. That might be due to the fact Ilomastat solubility dmso that most of the patients’ antihypertensive Talazoparib mw potency did not change between before and after the switch.

In this regard, mixed formulations containing ARB and CCB might be safe when switching treatment. There are several limitations in the present study that need to be taken into consideration. First, the study was not a parallel comparative study between a group that had switched treatment to combination drugs and a group that had not. Thus, the evidence level is not high enough, but our study vividly revealed the actual situations of clinical practice especially in nephrology. Next, switching to combination drugs was entrusted to the attending physician’s judgment and choice, which might create some bias. However, by surveying retrospectively, we could successfully reveal the physician’s attitude in clinical practice. The third limitation was related O-methylated flavonoid to the questionnaire survey. Blood pressure, adherences and antihypertensive potency were expressed as numerical values, whereas the level of satisfaction was subjective. There is a method using an analog scale, but in the present study, there was no need to do so. Final limitation was the method used in the calculation of the antihypertensive potency. The issue is whether a comparison of the antihypertensive effects belonging to different classes is possible or not. However, when antihypertensive drugs are released in the market, the doses are determined on the basis of their antihypertensive effects, thus our methods of quantification might not be precise but sufficient for comparison.