17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Long-term Outcomes of the Effects of Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Pharmacist Management on Blood Pressure Among Adults With Uncontrolled Hypertension : Follow-up of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How long does blood pressure remain lower compared with usual care after a 12-month intensive intervention (home telemonitoring and pharmacist management)?

          Findings

          In this follow-up of a cluster randomized trial of 326 patients with uncontrolled hypertension, research clinic measurements showed that home blood pressure telemonitoring with pharmacist management lowered blood pressure more than usual care in the first 18 months, but this was not sustained through 54 months. The results from routine clinical measurements suggested significantly lower blood pressure in the intervention group for up to 24 months.

          Meaning

          Long-term maintenance strategies may be needed to sustain blood pressure intervention effects over several years.

          Abstract

          This follow-up of a cluster randomized clinical trial of adults with uncontrolled hypertension examines the durability of the effect of a home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management intervention on blood pressure through 54 months of follow-up and compares blood pressure measurements performed in the research clinic vs usual care.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease. The results were previously reported of a trial of home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring and pharmacist management intervention in which the interventions stopped after 12 months. There were significantly greater reductions in systolic BP (SBP) in the intervention group than in the usual care group at 6, 12, and 18 months (−10.7, −9.7, and −6.6 mm Hg, respectively).

          Objectives

          To examine the durability of the intervention effect on BP through 54 months of follow-up and to compare BP measurements performed in the research clinic and in routine clinical care.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Follow-up of a cluster randomized clinical trial among 16 primary care clinics and 450 patients with uncontrolled hypertension in a large health system from March 2009 to November 2015.

          Interventions

          A home BP telemonitoring intervention with pharmacist management or usual care.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Change from baseline to 54 months in SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) measured as the mean of 3 measurements obtained at each research clinic visit.

          Results

          Among 450 patients, 228 (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [11.7] years; 54.8% male) were randomized to the telemonitoring intervention and 222 (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [12.2] years; 55.9% male) to usual care. Research clinic BP measurements were obtained from 326 of 450 (72.4%) study patients at the 54-month follow-up visit, including 162 (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [11.1] years; 54.9% male) randomized to the telemonitoring intervention and 164 (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.2] years; 57.3% male) to usual care. Routine clinical care BP measurements were obtained from 439 of 450 (97.6%) study patients at 6248 visits during the follow-up period. Based on research clinic measurements, baseline mean SBP was 148 mm Hg in both groups. In the intervention group, mean SBP at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 54-month follow-up was 126.7, 125.7, 126.9, and 130.6 mm Hg, respectively. In the usual care group, mean SBP at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 54-month follow-up was 136.9, 134.8, 133.0, and 132.6 mm Hg, respectively. The differential reduction by study group in SBP from baseline to 54 months was −2.5 mm Hg (95% CI, −6.3 to 1.2 mm Hg; P = .18). The DBP followed a similar pattern, with a differential reduction by study group from baseline to 54 months of −1.0 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.2 to 1.2 mm Hg; P = .37). The SBP and DBP results from routine clinical measurements suggested significantly lower BP in the intervention group for up to 24 months.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This intensive intervention had sustained effects for up to 24 months (12 months after the intervention ended). Long-term maintenance of BP control is likely to require continued monitoring and resumption of the intervention if BP increases.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781365

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context.

          There are 14 unconfounded randomised trials of antihypertensive drugs (chiefly diuretics or beta-blockers): total 37,000 individuals, mean treatment duration 5 years, mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) difference 5-6 mm Hg. In prospective observational studies, a long-term difference of 5-6 mm Hg in usual DBP is associated with about 35-40% less stroke and 20-25% less coronary heart disease (CHD). For those dying in the trials, the DBP difference had persisted only 2-3 years, yet an overview showed that vascular mortality was significantly reduced (2p less than 0.0002); non-vascular mortality appeared unchanged. Stroke was reduced by 42% SD 6 (95% confidence interval 35-50%; 289 vs 484 events, 2p less than 0.0001), suggesting that virtually all the epidemiologically expected stroke reduction appears rapidly. CHD was reduced by 14% SD 5 (95% CI 4-22%; 671 vs 771 events, 2p less than 0.01), suggesting that just over half the epidemiologically expected CHD reduction appears rapidly. Although this significant CHD reduction could well be worthwhile, its size remains indefinite for most circumstances (though beta-blockers after myocardial infarction are of substantial benefit). At present, therefore, a sufficiently high risk of stroke (perhaps because of age, blood pressure, or, in particular, history of cerebrovascular disease) may be the clearest indication for antihypertensive treatment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials

            (2003)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Team-based care and improved blood pressure control: a community guide systematic review.

              Uncontrolled hypertension remains a widely prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in the U.S. team-based care, established by adding new staff or changing the roles of existing staff such as nurses and pharmacists to work with a primary care provider and the patient. Team-based care has the potential to improve the quality of hypertension management. The goal of this Community Guide systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure (BP) outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                7 September 2018
                September 2018
                7 September 2018
                : 1
                : 5
                : e181617
                Affiliations
                [1 ]HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
                [2 ]Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: June 7, 2018.
                Published: September 7, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1617
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Margolis KL et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Karen L. Margolis, MD, MPH, HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, PO Box 1524, Mail Stop 23301A, Minneapolis, MN 55440 ( karen.l.margolis@ 123456healthpartners.com ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Margolis and Mr Asche had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Margolis, Asche, Bergdall, Sperl-Hillen, Nyboer, Maciosek, O’Connor.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Margolis, Asche, Dehmer, Green, Sperl-Hillen, Pawloski, Maciosek, Trower, O’Connor.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Margolis, Asche, Bergdall, Nyboer.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Asche, Dehmer, Green, Sperl-Hillen, Pawloski, Maciosek, Trower, O’Connor.
                Statistical analysis: Asche, Trower.
                Obtained funding: Margolis, Sperl-Hillen, Maciosek, O’Connor.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Bergdall, Sperl-Hillen, Nyboer.
                Supervision: Margolis, Sperl-Hillen, Maciosek.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Margolis reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study and grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) outside of the submitted work. Dr Dehmer reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Green reported receiving grants from the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Sperl-Hillen reported receiving grants from the HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research during the conduct of the study. Dr Maciosek reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 2-R01-HL090965 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source approved the design of the study and oversaw its conduct based on recruitment reports and annual reports. It had no role in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi180100
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1617
                6324502
                30646139
                2e135aca-2b44-4b23-b8b9-44c3ecbbfeff
                Copyright 2018 Margolis KL et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 5 March 2018
                : 6 June 2018
                : 7 June 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content543

                Cited by54

                Most referenced authors1,079