Search

Uncontrolled hypertension is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease. A cluster-randomized trial in 16 primary care clinics showed that 12 months of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management lowered blood pressure more than usual care (UC) for 24 months. We report cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalized heart failure, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death) and costs over 5 years of follow-up. In the telemonitoring intervention (TI group, n=228), there were 15 cardiovascular events (5 myocardial infarction, 4 stroke, 5 heart failure, 1 cardiovascular death) among 10 patients. In UC group (n=222), there were 26 events (11 myocardial infarction, 12 stroke, 3 heart failure) among 19 patients. The cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 4.4% in the TI group versus 8.6% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.21-1.13], P =0.09). Including 2 coronary revascularizations in the TI group and 10 in the UC group, the secondary cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 5.3% in the TI group versus 10.4% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.08], P =0.08). Microsimulation modeling showed the difference in events far exceeded predictions based on observed blood pressure. Intervention costs (in 2017 US dollars) were $1511 per patient. Over 5 years, estimated event costs were $758 000 in the TI group and $1 538 000 in the UC group for a return on investment of 126% and a net cost savings of about $1900 per patient. Telemonitoring with pharmacist management lowered blood pressure and may have reduced costs by avoiding cardiovascular events over 5 years. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781365.

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BPs) before making a new diagnosis of hypertension, using 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM), however this is not common in routine clinical practice. Blood Pressure Checks and Diagnosing Hypertension (BP-CHECK) is a randomized controlled diagnostic study assessing the comparability and acceptability of clinic, home, and kiosk-based BP monitoring to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Stakeholders including patients, providers, policy makers, and researchers informed the study design and protocols., Methods: Adults aged 18-85 without diagnosed hypertension and on no hypertension medication with elevated BPs in clinic and at the baseline research visit are randomized to one of 3 regimens for diagnosing hypertension: (1) clinic BPs, (2) home BPs, or (3) kiosk BPs; all participants subsequently complete ABPM. The primary outcomes are the comparability (with daytime ABPM mean systolic and diastolic BP as the reference standard) and acceptability (e.g., adherence to, patient-reported outcomes) of each method compared to ABPM. Longer-term outcomes are assessed at 6-months including: patient-reported outcomes, primary care providers' diagnosis of hypertension; and BP control. We report challenges experienced and our response to these., Results: Enrollment began in May of 2017 with a target of randomizing 510 participants. BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the US changed after the trial started. We discuss the stakeholder process used to assess and respond to these changes., Conclusion and Public Health Impact: BP-CHECK will inform which hypertension diagnostic methods are most accurate, acceptable, and feasible to implement in primary care., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The Hyperlink trial tested a 12-month intervention of home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with pharmacist case management in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. The intervention resulted in improved BP control compared with usual care at both 6 (72% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and 12 months (71% vs. 53%; P = 0.005). We sought to investigate factors contributing to intervention success., Design: Mixed-methods analysis of process of care data, patient focus groups, and pharmacist interviews., Participants: Data from 228 intervention patients were examined from the original 450 patients randomly assigned from 16 primary care clinics. Five patient focus groups and 4 pharmacist interviews were conducted to ascertain the patient and pharmacist perspective. Focus group and interview data were coded, and themes relevant to pharmacists were identified., Outcome Measures: Home BP readings of less than 135/85 mm Hg and patient focus group and pharmacist interview themes., Results: Mean BP at the intake visit was 148/85 mm Hg. Antihypertensive medications were adjusted in 10% of patients at the initial in-person visit, 33% at phone visit 1, 36% at phone visit 2, and 19% at phone visit 3. Thereafter, medication changes declined. The mean home BP for patients at the first phone visit was 136/80 mm Hg, 126/74 mm Hg at 3 months, and 123/73 mm Hg at 5 months, with little change thereafter. Key components of success from patient and pharmacist interviews included a strong patient-pharmacist relationship, individualized treatment plans, and frequent phone contact with the pharmacist., Conclusion: Frequent adjustments to the antihypertensive treatment regimen based on home BP telemonitoring resulted in rapid lowering of BP. Our results suggest that an intensive telephone-based intervention with the key components of medication adjustments, a strong patient and pharmacist relationship, and individualized treatment plans can achieve BP control in only 3 months in many patients with uncontrolled hypertension., (Copyright © 2018 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension., Methods and Findings: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies., Conclusions: Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

This paper reports subgroup analysis of a successful cluster-randomized trial to identify attributes of hypertensive patients who benefited more or less from an intervention combining blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring and pharmacist management. The end point was BP < 140/90 mm Hg at 6-month follow-up. Fourteen baseline patient characteristics were selected a priori as subgroup variables. Among the 351 trial participants, 44% were female, 84% non-Hispanic white, mean age was 60.9 years, and mean BP was 149/86 mm Hg. The overall adjusted odds ratio for BP control in the intervention versus usual care group was 3.64 (P < .001). The effect of the intervention was significantly larger in patients who were younger (interaction P = .02), did not have diabetes (P = .005), had high baseline diastolic BP (P = .02), added salt less than daily in food preparation (P = .007), and took 0-2 (rather than 3-6) antihypertensive medication classes at baseline (P = .02). These findings may help prioritize patients for whom the intervention is most effective., (Copyright © 2016 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Electronic medical records (EMRs) allow for real-time access to blood pressure (BP) information on a population basis and improve identification and treatment of individuals with hypertension. Despite the potential uses of the data available from EMRs, relatively little research has examined the reliability of this data. To address this gap, the authors examined the reliability of BP taken at primary care visits and recorded in an EMR with those taken at a research study visit at which standard protocols were used to measure BP among all adults as well as by sex and age. Systolic BP (SBP) averaged 3.7 (17.3) points and diastolic BP (DBP) was 2.8 (10.6) points lower in the EMR than in the study visit across age and sex groups, with all differences statistically significant. For this cohort of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension, there was moderate correlation between BP measurements taken in clinic and at research. However, BP control for individuals, as defined by an SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP 90 mm Hg, differed by almost 25%. Known variability of BP and clinic procedures for measuring and recording BP may account for these differences., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: In 1999, the first reporting year of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, our organization noted a significant difference in the proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) when the target was changed from < 140/90 mm Hg to < or = 140/90 mm Hg. We compared these data with a second larger dataset to determine if these findings were an isolated or common phenomenon and to determine what factors influenced this difference., Study Design and Methods: Subjects were drug-treated hypertensive patients. Blood pressure measurements were taken from outpatient medical records., Results: The percent of hypertensive patients with controlled BP levels was significantly greater (P <.001) when the cutoff of < or = 140/90 mm Hg was used rather than <140/90 mm Hg. When a single BP measurement was used to estimate control, the percent of patients with controlled hypertension increased 12.7% simply by changing the definition to include the level of systolic BP = 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP = 90. When multiple BP readings were used to estimate control, the difference was much less pronounced (2.7%)., Conclusions: When evaluating the success of hypertension treatment, defining BP control as a BP of < or = 140 mm Hg systolic and < or = 90 diastolic mm Hg will result in significantly more people having controlled BP than when <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic are used. This difference is most likely the result of end-digit preference. The use of multiple measures reduces this effect. Policy makers and guideline authors should consider these aspects when setting BP goals.

BackgroundPharmacist- or nurse-led team care decreases patient blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.PurposeTo evaluate whether a Web-based dietitian-led (WD) team care intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased BP, CVD risk, and weight compared to usual care (UC).MethodsElectronic health record (EHR) data identified patients aged 30-69 years with BMI >26, elevated BP, and 10%-25% 10-year Framingham CVD risk who were registered patient website users. Patients with uncontrolled BP at screening were randomized to UC or WD, which included a home BP monitor, scale, and dietitian team care. WD participants had a single in-person dietitian visit to obtain baseline information and create a plan to reduce CVD risk. Planned follow-up occurred via secure messaging to report BP, weight, and fruit and vegetable intake and receive ongoing feedback. If needed, dietitians encouraged patients and their physicians to intensify antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications. Primary outcomes were change in systolic BP and weight loss ≥4 kg at 6 months. Feasibility outcomes included intervention utilization and satisfaction.ResultsBetween 2010 and 2011, a total of 90 of 101 participants completed 6-month follow-ups. The WD group had higher rates of secure messaging utilization and patient satisfaction. The WD group lost significantly more weight than the UC group (adjusted net difference=-3.2 kg, 95% CI=-5.0, -1.5, p

Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring has been shown to lead to lower blood pressure and improved hypertension control. However, there are barriers to the widespread use of SMBP, including physicians' lack of confidence in patients' ability to measure their own blood pressure. A study found that patients can learn to accurately measure their blood pressure after watching a 3-minute video. Other barriers include the need for validated home blood pressure monitors, the recommendation to average multiple measurements, and the lack of insurance coverage for blood pressure devices. Despite these challenges, progress is being made in advancing SMBP, and initiatives are working to address these barriers. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation. Objective: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement. Design: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants. Participants: Adults (18–85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit. Measures: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1–7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed. Key Results: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM. Conclusions: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the multilevel factors associated with controlled blood pressure is important to determine modifiable factors for future interventions, especially among populations living in poverty. This study identified clinically important factors associated with blood pressure control among patients receiving care in community health centers. This study includes 31,089 patients with diagnosed hypertension by 2015 receiving care from 103 community health centers; aged 19–64 years; and with ≥1 yearly visit with ≥1 recorded blood pressure in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Blood pressure control was operationalized as an average of all blood pressure measurements during all the 3 years and categorized as controlled (blood pressure <140/90), partially controlled (mixture of controlled and uncontrolled blood pressure), or never controlled. Multinomial mixed-effects logistic regression models, conducted in 2022, were used to calculate unadjusted ORs and AORs of being in the never- or partially controlled blood pressure groups versus in the always-controlled group. A total of 50.5% had always controlled, 39.7% had partially controlled, and 9.9% never had controlled blood pressure during the study period. The odds of being partially or never in blood pressure control were higher for patients without continuous insurance (AOR=1.09; 95% CI=1.03, 1.16; AOR=1.18; 95% CI=1.07, 1.30, respectively), with low provider continuity (AOR=1.24; 95% CI=1.15, 1.34; AOR=1.28; 95% CI=1.13, 1.45, respectively), with a recent diagnosis of hypertension (AOR=1.34; 95% CI=1.20, 1.49; AOR=1.19; 95% CI=1.00, 1.42), with inconsistent antihypertensive medications (AOR=1.19; 95% CI=1.11, 1.27; AOR=1.26; 95% CI=1.13, 1.41, respectively), and with fewer blood pressure checks (AOR=2.14; 95% CI=1.97, 2.33; AOR=2.17; 95% CI=1.90, 2.48, respectively) than for their counterparts. Efforts targeting continuous and consistent access to care, antihypertensive medications, and regular blood pressure monitoring may improve blood pressure control among populations living in poverty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A team approach is one of the most effective ways to lower blood pressure (BP) in uncontrolled hypertension, but different models for organizing team-based care have not been compared directly.Methods: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial compared 2 interventions in adult patients with moderately severe hypertension (BP≥150/95 mm Hg): (1) clinic-based care using best practices and face-to-face visits with physicians and medical assistants; and (2) telehealth care using best practices and adding home BP telemonitoring with home-based care coordinated by a clinical pharmacist or nurse practitioner. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in patient-reported outcomes over 6 months.Results: Participants (N=3071 in 21 primary care clinics) were on average 60 years old, 47% male, and 19% Black. Protocol-specified follow-up within 6 weeks was 32% in clinic-based care and 27% in telehealth care. BP decreased significantly during 12 months of follow-up in both groups, from 157/92 to 139/82 mm Hg in clinic-based care patients (adjusted mean difference -18/-10 mm Hg) and 157/91 to 139/81 mm Hg in telehealth care patients (adjusted mean difference -19/-10 mm Hg), with no significant difference in systolic BP change between groups (-0.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.84 to 1.32]). Telehealth care patients were significantly more likely than clinic-based care patients to report frequent home BP measurement, rate their BP care highly, and report that BP care visits were convenient.Conclusions: Telehealth care that includes extended team care is an effective and safe alternative to clinic-based care for improving patient-centered care for hypertension.Registration: URL: https://www.Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02996565. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis. Objective: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18–85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic. Interventions: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks. Main Measures: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes. Key Results: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (−4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval −7.3, −2.2]; P<.001); home (−0.1mmHg [−1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (−7.2mmHg [−8.8, −5.5]; P<.001); home (−0.4mmHg [−1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively. Limitations: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation. Conclusions: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3–5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension. Methods We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18–85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM). Results We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended − unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [−0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [−0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 − 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic −0.45 mm Hg [−1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [−1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic −3.6 and diastolic −2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively. Conclusions The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The PRedicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm accurately predicted out-of-office blood pressure (BP) among adults with suspected high BP in the United Kingdom and Canada. We tested the accuracy of PROOF-BP in a diverse US population and evaluated a newly developed US-specific algorithm (PROOF-BP-US). METHODS Adults with ≥2 office BP readings and ≥10 awake BP readings on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring from 4 pooled US studies were included. We compared mean awake BP with predicted out-of-office BP using PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US. Our primary outcomes were hypertensive out-of-office systolic BP (SBP) ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥80 mm Hg. RESULTS We included 3,058 adults, mean (SD) age was 52.0 (11.9) years, 38% were male, and 54% were Black. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curve (95% confidence interval) for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.81 (0.79–0.82) and DBP was 0.76 (0.74–0.78) for PROOF-BP. For PROOF-BP-US, the AUROC curve for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.82 (0.81–0.83) and for DBP was 0.81 (0.79–0.83). The optimal predicted out-of-office BP ranges for out-of-office BP measurement referral were 120–134/75–84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP and 125–134/75–84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP-US. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline (referral range 130–159/80–99 mm Hg) would refer 93.1% of adults not taking antihypertensive medications with office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for out-of-office BP measurement, compared with 53.1% using PROOF-BP and 46.8% using PROOF-BP-US. CONCLUSIONS PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US accurately predicted out-of-office hypertension in a diverse sample of US adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion improved access to health insurance and health care services. This study assessed whether the rate of patients with undiagnosed hypertension and the rate of patients with hypertension without anti-hypertensive medication decreased post-ACA in community health center (CHC). Methods We analyzed electronic health record data from 2012 to 2017 for 126,699 CHC patients aged 19–64 years with ≥1 visit pre-ACA and ≥1 post-ACA in 14 Medicaid expansion states. We estimated the prevalence of patients with undiagnosed hypertension (high blood pressure reading without a diagnosis for ≥1 day) and the prevalence of patients with hypertension without anti-hypertensive medication by year and health insurance type (continuously uninsured, continuously insured, gained insurance, and discontinuously insured). We compared the time to diagnosis or to anti-hypertensive medication pre- vs. post-ACA. Results Overall, 37.3% of patients had undiagnosed hypertension and 27.0% of patients with diagnosed hypertension were without a prescribed anti-hypertensive medication for ≥1 day during the study period. The rate of undiagnosed hypertension decreased from 2012 through 2017. Those who gained insurance had the lowest rates of undiagnosed hypertension (2012: 14.8%; 2017: 6.1%). Patients with hypertension were also more likely to receive anti-hypertension medication during this period, especially uninsured patients who experienced the largest decline (from 47.0% to 8.1%). Post-ACA, among patients with undiagnosed hypertension, time to diagnosis was shorter for those who gained insurance than other insurance types. Conclusions Those who gained health insurance were appropriately diagnosed with hypertension faster and more frequently post-ACA than those with other insurance types. Clinical trials registration Trial Number NCT03545763. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or affect disease severity. Prior studies have not examined risks by medication dose. Methods This retrospective cohort study included people aged ≥18 years enrolled in a US integrated healthcare system for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020. Current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for race/ethnicity, obesity, and other covariates. Results Among 322,044 individuals, 826 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 204/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.6 per 1,000 individuals) compared with 622/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.3 per 1,000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.74–1.12). For use of <1 defined daily dose (DDD) vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.92 (95% CI 0.66–1.28); for 1 to <2 DDDs, 0.89 (95% CI 0.66–1.19); and for ≥2 DDDs, 0.92 (95% CI 0.72–1.18). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 26% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.98 (95% CI 0.63–1.54), and there was no association with dose. Conclusions These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) are common and contribute to excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether BP control, changes in BP, and patient behaviors and attitudes were associated with a new hypertension diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 323 participants from BP-CHECK (Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension), a randomized diagnostic study of BP measuring methods in adults without diagnosed hypertension with elevated BP recruited from 12 primary care clinics of an integrated health care system in Washington State during 2017 to 2019. All 323 participants returned a positive diagnostic test for hypertension based on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and were followed for 6 months. We used linear regression to examine the relationships between a new hypertension diagnosis (primary independent variable) and differences in the change in study outcomes from baseline to 6-month. RESULTS: Mean age of study participants was 58.3 years (SD, 13.1), 147 (45%) were women, and 253 (80%) were of non-Hispanic White race. At 6 months, 154 of 323 (48%) participants had a new hypertension diagnosis of whom 88 achieved target BP control. Participants with a new hypertension diagnosis experienced significantly larger declines from baseline in BP (adjusted mean difference: systolic BP, −7.6 mm Hg [95% CI, −10.3 to −4.8]; diastolic BP, −3.8 mm Hg [95% CI, −5.6 to −2.0]) compared with undiagnosed peers. They were also significantly more likely to achieve BP control by 6 months compared with undiagnosed participants (adjusted relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0]). At 6 months, 101 of 323 participants (31%) with a positive ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic test remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants with high BP on screening and ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic testing remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications after 6 months. New strategies are needed to enhance integration of BP diagnostic testing into clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03130257. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Randomized controlled trials have provided unequivocal evidence that treatment of hypertension decreases mortality and major disability from cardiovascular disease; however, blood pressure remains inadequately treated in most affected individuals. This large gap continues despite the facts that more than 90% of adults with hypertension have health insurance, and hypertension is the leading cause of visits to the doctor. New approaches are needed to improve hypertension care. Objectives: The Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring (e-BP) study is a three-arm randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether care based on the Chronic Care Model and delivered over the Internet improves hypertension care. The primary study outcomes are systolic, diastolic, and blood pressure control; secondary outcomes are medication adherence, patient self-efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. Methods: Hypertensive patients receiving care at Group Health medical centers are eligible if they have uncontrolled blood pressure on two screening visits and access to the Web and an e-mail address. Study participants are randomly assigned to three intervention groups: (a) usual care; (b) home blood pressure monitoring receipt and proficiency training on its use and the Group Health secure patient website (with secure e-mail access to their healthcare provider, access to a shared medical record, prescription refill and other services); or (c) this plus pharmacist care management (collaborative care management between the patient, the pharmacist, and the patient''s physician via a secure patient website and the electronic medical record). Conclusion: We will determine whether a new model of patient-centered care that leverages Web communications, self-monitoring, and collaborative care management improves hypertension control. If this model proves successful and cost-effective, similar interventions could be used to improve the care of large numbers of patients with uncontrolled hypertension. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is essential to effective management of hypertension. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of SMBP that leverages: cellular-enabled home BP monitors without a need for Wi-Fi or Bluetooth; simple communication modalities such as text messaging to support patient engagement; and integration into existing team-based workflows in safety-net clinics. This study will be conducted with patients in San Francisco who are treated within a network of safety-net clinics. English and Spanish-speaking patients with diagnosed hypertension will be eligible for the trial if they have recent BP readings ≥140/90 mmHg and do not have co-morbid conditions that make home BP monitoring more complex to manage. This study will implement a three-arm randomized controlled trial to compare varying levels of implementation support: 1) cellular-enabled BP monitors (with minimal implementation support), 2) cellular-enabled BP monitors with protocol-based implementation support (text reminders for patients; aggregated BP summaries sent to primary care providers), and 3) cellular-enabled BP monitors and pharmacist-led support (pharmacist coaching and independent medication adjustments). For the main analysis, we will use mixed effects linear regression to compare the change in primary outcome of systolic BP. Secondary outcomes include BP control (<140/90 mmHg), medication intensification, patient-reported outcomes, and implementation processes (i.e., engagement with the intervention). This study will design and test a digital health intervention for use in marginalized populations treated within safety net settings, evaluating both effectiveness and implementation to advance more equitable health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Restricted use of mercury devices, increased use of oscillometric devices, discrepancies between clinic and out-of-clinic BP, and concerns about measurement error with manual BP measurement techniques have resulted in uncertainty for clinicians and researchers. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health convened a working group of clinicians and researchers in October 2017 to review data on BP assessment among adults in clinical practice and clinic-based research. In this report, the authors review the topics discussed during a 2-day meeting including the current state of knowledge on BP assessment in clinical practice and clinic-based research, knowledge gaps pertaining to current BP assessment methods, research and clinical needs to improve BP assessment, and the strengths and limitations of using BP obtained in clinical practice for research and quality improvement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncontrolled hypertension is the largest single contributor to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the U.S. population. Nurse- and pharmacist-led team-based care and telehealth care interventions have been shown to result in large and lasting improvements in blood pressure (BP); however, it is unclear how successfully these can be implemented at scale in real-world settings. It is also uncertain how telehealth interventions impact patient experience compared to traditional clinic-based care. To compare the effects of two evidence-based blood pressure care strategies in the primary care setting: (1) best-practice clinic-based care and (2) telehealth care with home BP telemonitoring and management by a clinical pharmacist. To evaluate implementation using mixed-methods supported by the RE-AIM framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The design is a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness pragmatic trial in 21 primary care clinics (9 clinic-based care, 12 telehealth care). Adult patients (age 18–85) with hypertension are enrolled via automated electronic health record (EHR) tools during primary care encounters if BP is elevated to ≥150/95 mmHg at two consecutive visits. The primary outcome is change in systolic BP over 12 months as extracted from the EHR. Secondary outcomes are change in key patient-reported outcomes over 6 months as measured by surveys. Qualitative data are collected at various time points to investigate implementation barriers and help explain intervention effects. This pragmatic trial aims to inform health systems about the benefits, strengths, and limitations of implementing home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist management for uncontrolled hypertension in real-world primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]