CLINICS 2010;65(9):857-863 Table 4 - Number of antihypertensive medications in use at the end of the study in patients who achieved control (,140/90 mmHg) of their blood pressure at the end of the 12-month study. Number of Antihypertensive Medications 01 02 03 04 05 06 Total Blood Pressure ,140/90 mmHg Blood Pressure .140/90 mmHg 3.2% 34.4% 21.9% 12.2% 3.9% 1.6% 77.2% 1.0% 5.0% 6.8% 6.8% 2.9% 0.3% 22.8% Total 4.2% 39.4% 28.7% 19.0% 6.8% 1.9% 100% calls’’ group (4 vs. 30, respectively; Figure 2). There was no difference in the percentage discontinuation in the ‘‘com- plicated’’ and ‘‘uncomplicated’’ groups or in the ‘‘current’’ and ‘‘traditional’’ treatment regimens (p.0.05). c) Tablet Count Patients in the groups: ‘‘complicated’’ and ‘‘uncompli- cated’’; ‘‘traditional’’ and ‘‘current’’; ‘‘phone calls’’ and ‘‘no phone calls’’ did not show statistically significant differ- ences in medication intake, as verified by counting the tablets returned at the visits. Compliance was over 85% at all visits. However, patients in the current + uncomplicated + phone call group had the highest rate of compliance (93%). The lowest rate of compliance occurred in the traditional + uncomplicated + no phone call group (85%) (p.0.05). d) Body Weight Blood pressure reductions occurred in the presence of increased body weight (baseline visit: 73¡14 kg; final visit: 74¡14 kg, p = 0.0008, Table 5). e) Adverse Events and Laboratory Tests Most of the adverse events that occurred during the study were of light or moderate intensity. Patients in the Compliance with antihypertensive treatment Ortega KC et al. Table 5 - Weight (kg) at the beginning and end of the treatment. Randomization Visit Final Visit P Value Group ‘‘Uncomplicated’’ ‘‘Complicated’’ ‘‘Traditional’’ Treatment ‘‘Current’’ Treatment ‘‘Phone Calls’’ ‘‘No Phone Calls’’ Total Data are shown as mean¡s.d. 72¡12 74¡15 74¡15 73¡13 74¡14 73¡14 73¡14 73¡13 76¡15 74¡15 74¡13 74¡15 74¡14 74¡14 0.39 0.007 0.09 0.005 0.13 0.018 0.0008 ‘‘traditional’’ group showed significantly more depression symptoms (5 vs. 0) and coughing (30 vs. 4) when compared with patients in the ‘‘current’’ treatment group. On the other hand, patients in the ‘‘current’’ group had a greater number of complaints of dizziness when compared to patients in the ‘‘traditional’’ treatment group (63 vs. 42, respectively). Compared to patients in the ‘‘uncomplicated’’ group, patients in the ‘‘complicated’’ group presented a larger number the following symptoms: abdominal pain (19 vs. 8), sleepiness (32 vs. 10), cough (23 vs. 11), weakness (23 vs. 11) and blurred vision (6 vs. 0). Conversely, compared to patients in the ‘‘complicated’’ group, patients in the ‘‘uncomplicated’’ group presented a larger number of complaints such as pain (74 vs. 53) and headache (80 vs. 59). Patients in the ‘‘phone calls’’ group reported a 34% rate of symptoms, while a 66% rate of symptoms was reported by patients in the ‘‘no phone calls’’ group. The most frequently (.10%) found adverse events were as follows: headache (62.1%), unspecific pain (58.2%), dizziness (45.8%), edema (40.1%), fatigue (15.3%), sleepiness (14.4%), cough (13.3%), precordial pain (13.3%), weakness (11.9%), tachycardia (11.3%), insomnia (10.5%) and paresthesia (10.5%). There were 26 (8%) severe adverse events: death (5), unstable angina (4), acute myocardial infarction (1), transient ischemic attack (1), hypertensive encephalopathy (1), breast cancer (3), bronchospastic crisis (1), cholecysto- Figure 2 - Discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment. 861