• Coronary artery disease
• quality of care and outcomes
• epidemiology
• EBM
• STEMI
• stable angina
• NSTEMI
• sudden cardiac death
• cardiomyopathy apical
• myocarditis
• diastolic dysfunction
• cardiomyopathy hypertrophic
• hypertension

“For a forgotten fact is news when it comes again”–Samuel Clemens

Despite oft-repeated caveats about the proper interpretation of data from observational studies, the implications of such studies are subject to being misunderstood. In recent years, a rich body of observational data has illuminated an association between poor adherence to medication and adverse outcomes. A simple explanation for this relationship is that patients who do not take their medication fail to obtain the beneficial effects of the drugs. However, the confounding of such associations by unmeasured variables is another possibility. In their paper published in Heart, LaFleur et al report on the association between adherence to anti-hypertensive treatment and cardiovascular outcomes and argue that because the benefit found in their observational study did not disappear after controlling for longitudinal blood pressure measurements, unmeasured confounders must be the explanation for the difference found.1 This work reminds us of the need for careful interpretation of findings from observational studies, and, indeed, from studies of all designs. At the time of publication of these data, it is appropriate to reflect upon the implications of this publication, as well as the authors' assumptions and conclusions.

The main strength of the approach taken by Lafleur et al is their rigorous approach in assessing the association between adherence to anti-hypertensive medication and adverse outcomes. The authors used previously validated approaches to measure adherence and examined its association with cardiovascular outcomes after controlling for follow-up blood pressure measurements. In this way, they demonstrated …