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.
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 IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study.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.
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.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary Background Control of blood pressure is a key component of cardiovascular disease prevention, but is difficult to achieve and until recently has been the sole preserve of health ...professionals. This study assessed whether self-management by people with poorly controlled hypertension resulted in better blood pressure control compared with usual care. Methods This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 24 general practices in the UK. Patients aged 35–85 years were eligible for enrolment if they had blood pressure more than 140/90 mm Hg despite antihypertensive treatment and were willing to self-manage their hypertension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to self-management, consisting of self-monitoring of blood pressure and self-titration of antihypertensive drugs, combined with telemonitoring of home blood pressure measurements or to usual care. Randomisation was done by use of a central web-based system and was stratified by general practice with minimisation for sex, baseline systolic blood pressure, and presence or absence of diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change in mean systolic blood pressure between baseline and each follow-up point (6 months and 12 months). All randomised patients who attended follow-up visits at 6 months and 12 months and had complete data for the primary outcome were included in the analysis, without imputation for missing data. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial , number ISRCTN17585681. Findings 527 participants were randomly assigned to self-management (n=263) or control (n=264), of whom 480 (91%; self-management, n=234; control, n=246) were included in the primary analysis. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 12·9 mm Hg (95% CI 10·4–15·5) from baseline to 6 months in the self-management group and by 9·2 mm Hg (6·7–11·8) in the control group (difference between groups 3·7 mm Hg, 0·8–6·6; p=0·013). From baseline to 12 months, systolic blood pressure decreased by 17·6 mm Hg (14·9–20·3) in the self-management group and by 12·2 mm Hg (9·5–14·9) in the control group (difference between groups 5·4 mm Hg, 2·4–8·5; p=0·0004). Frequency of most side-effects did not differ between groups, apart from leg swelling (self-management, 74 patients 32%; control, 55 patients 22%; p=0·022). Interpretation Self-management of hypertension in combination with telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements represents an important new addition to control of hypertension in primary care. Funding Department of Health Policy Research Programme, National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development, and Midlands Research Practices Consortium.
IMPORTANCE: Self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) results in lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension, but there are no data about ...patients in high-risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care on systolic blood pressure among patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A primary care, unblinded, randomized clinical trial involving 552 patients who were aged at least 35 years with a history of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease and with baseline blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg being treated at 59 UK primary care practices was conducted between March 2011 and January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Self-monitoring of blood pressure combined with an individualized self-titration algorithm. During the study period, the office visit blood pressure measurement target was 130/80 mm Hg and the home measurement target was 120/75 mm Hg. Control patients received usual care consisting of seeing their health care clinician for routine blood pressure measurement and adjustment of medication if necessary. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure between intervention and control groups at the 12-month office visit. RESULTS: Primary outcome data were available from 450 patients (81%). The mean baseline blood pressure was 143.1/80.5 mm Hg in the intervention group and 143.6/79.5 mm Hg in the control group. After 12 months, the mean blood pressure had decreased to 128.2/73.8 mm Hg in the intervention group and to 137.8/76.3 mm Hg in the control group, a difference of 9.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.7-12.7) in systolic and 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.8-5.0) in diastolic blood pressure following correction for baseline blood pressure. Multiple imputation for missing values gave similar results: the mean baseline was 143.5/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 144.2/79.9 mm Hg in the control group, and at 12 months, the mean was 128.6/73.6 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 138.2/76.4 mm Hg in the control group, with a difference of 8.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-12.7) for systolic and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.7-5.5) for diastolic blood pressure between groups. These results were comparable in all subgroups, without excessive adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care resulted in lower systolic blood pressure at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN87171227
Abstract
Introduction. Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is an increasingly common part of hypertension management. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the systolic and ...diastolic BP reduction, and achievement of target BP, associated with self-monitoring.
Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, database of abstracts of clinical effectiveness, the health technology assessment database, the NHS economic evaluation database, and the TRIP database were searched for studies where the intervention included self-monitoring of BP and the outcome was change in office/ambulatory BP or proportion with controlled BP. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was combined with meta-regression to investigate heterogeneity in effect sizes.
Results. A total of 25 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (27 comparisons) were identified. Office systolic BP (20 RCTs, 21 comparisons, 5,898 patients) and diastolic BP (23 RCTs, 25 comparisons, 6,038 patients) were significantly reduced in those who self-monitored compared to usual care (weighted mean difference (WMD) systolic −3.82 mmHg (95% confidence interval −5.61 to −2.03), diastolic −1.45 mmHg (−1.95 to −0.94)). Self-monitoring increased the chance of meeting office BP targets (12 RCTs, 13 comparisons, 2,260 patients, relative risk = 1.09 (1.02 to 1.16)). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for all three comparisons, which could be partially accounted for by the use of additional co-interventions.
Conclusion. Self-monitoring reduces blood pressure by a small but significant amount. Meta-regression could only account for part of the observed heterogeneity.
IntroductionPrehypertension is defined as blood pressure that is above the normal range but not high enough to be classed as hypertension. Prehypertension is a warning of development of hypertension ...as well as a risk for cardiovascular disease, heart attack and stroke. In the UK, non-pharmacological interventions are recommended for prehypertension management but no reviews have focused on the effectiveness of these types of interventions solely in people with prehypertension. Therefore, the proposed systematic review will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing or maintaining blood pressure in prehypertensive people.Methods and analysisThis systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The databases/trial registries that will be searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations include Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Scopus and the International HTA Database. Search terms have been identified by the team including an information specialist. Three reviewers will be involved in the study selection process. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list for economic evaluations. Findings from the included studies will be tabulated and synthesised narratively. Heterogeneity will be assessed through visual inspection of forest plots and the calculation of the χ2 and I2 statistics and causes of heterogeneity will be assessed where sufficient data are available. If possible, we plan to investigate differential effects on specific subgroups and from different types of interventions using meta-regression. Where relevant, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence found.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated via the wider study website and shared with the study sites and participants.Registration detailsThe review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420232433047).
IntroductionAround 40% of adults have pre-hypertension (blood pressure between 120–139/80–89), meaning they are at increased risk of developing hypertension and other cardiovascular disease-related ...conditions. There are limited studies on the management of pre-hypertension; however, guidance recommends that it should be focused on lifestyle modification rather than on medication. Self-monitoring of blood pressure could allow people to monitor and manage their risk status and may allow individuals to modify lifestyle factors. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility and acceptability, to both healthcare professionals and people with pre-hypertension, of blood pressure self-monitoring.Methods and analysisA prospective, non-randomised feasibility study, with a mixed-methods approach will be employed. Eligible participants (n=114) will be recruited from general practices, pharmacies and community providers across Lancashire and South Cumbria. Participants will self-monitor their blood pressure at home for 6 months and will complete questionnaires at three timepoints (baseline, 6 and 12 months). Healthcare professionals and participants involved in the study will be invited to take part in follow-up interviews and a focus group. The primary outcomes include the willingness to engage with the concept of pre-hypertension, the acceptability of self-monitoring, and the study processes. Secondary outcomes will inform the design of a potential future trial. A cost-analysis and cost-benefit analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from London–Fulham NHS Research Ethics Committee, the University of Central Lancashire Health Ethics Review Panel and the HRA. The results of the study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, feedback to service users and healthcare professionals, and to professional bodies in primary care and pharmacy.Trial registration numberISRCTN13649483.
IntroductionOverweight and obesity are growing public health problems worldwide. Both diet and physical activity have been the primary interventions for weight reduction over the past decade. With ...increasing rates of overweight and obesity, it is evident that a primary focus on diet and exercise has not resulted in sustained obesity reduction within the global population. There is now a case to explore other weight management strategies, focusing on psychological factors that may underpin overweight and obesity. Psychological therapy interventions are gaining recognition for their effectiveness in addressing underlying emotional factors and promoting weight loss. However, there is a dearth of literature that has mapped the types of psychological interventions and the characteristics of these interventions as a means of achieving weight reduction and sustained weight reduction in adults with overweight or obesity.Methods and analysisThe review will combine the methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A total of six databases will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy. Intervention studies will be included if participants are 18 years and over, classified as overweight or obese (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), and have received a psychological therapy intervention. The review will exclude studies that are not available in English, not full text, none peer reviewed or combine a lifestyle and/or pharmacological intervention with a psychological intervention. Data will be synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required to conduct this scoping review. The findings will be disseminated through journal publication(s), social media and a lay summary for key stakeholders.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—Identifying the etiology of acute ischemic stroke is essential for effective secondary prevention. However, in at least one third of ischemic strokes, existing investigative ...protocols fail to determine the underlying cause. Establishing etiology is complicated by variation in clinical practice, often reflecting preferences of treating clinicians and variable availability of investigative techniques. In this review, we systematically assess the extent to which there exists consensus, disagreement, and gaps in clinical practice recommendations on etiologic workup in acute ischemic stroke.
METHODS—We identified clinical practice guidelines/consensus statements through searches of 4 electronic databases and hand-searching of websites/reference lists. Two reviewers independently assessed reports for eligibility. We extracted data on report characteristics and recommendations relating to etiologic workup in acute ischemic stroke and in cases of cryptogenic stroke. Quality was assessed using the AGREE II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Recommendations were synthesized according to a published algorithm for diagnostic evaluation in cryptogenic stroke.
RESULTS—We retrieved 16 clinical practice guidelines and 7 consensus statements addressing acute stroke management (n=12), atrial fibrillation (n=5), imaging (n=5), and secondary prevention (n=1). Five reports were of overall high quality. For all patients, guidelines recommended routine brain imaging, noninvasive vascular imaging, a 12-lead ECG, and routine blood tests/laboratory investigations. Additionally, ECG monitoring (>24 hours) was recommended for patients with suspected embolic stroke and echocardiography for patients with suspected cardiac source. Three reports recommended investigations for rarer causes of stroke. None of the reports provided guidance on the extent of investigation needed before classifying a stroke as cryptogenic.
CONCLUSIONS—While consensus exists surrounding standard etiologic workup, there is little agreement on more advanced investigations for rarer causes of acute ischemic stroke. This gap in guidance, and in the underpinning evidence, demonstrates missed opportunities to better understand and protect against ongoing stroke risk.
REGISTRATION—URLhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifierCRD42019127822.
Previous research suggests that most GPs in the UK use self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) to monitor the control of hypertension rather than for diagnosis. This study sought to assess current ...practice in the use of self-monitoring and any changes in practice following more recent guideline recommendations.
To survey the views and practice of UK GPs in 2015 with regard to SMBP and compare them with a previous survey carried out in 2011.
Web-based survey of a regionally representative sample of 300 UK GPs.
GPs completed an online questionnaire concerning the use of SMBP in the management of hypertension. Analyses comprised descriptive statistics, tests for between-group differences (z, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ
tests), and multivariate logistic regression.
Results were available for 300 GPs (94% of those who started the survey). GPs reported using self-monitoring to diagnose hypertension (169/291; 58%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 52 to 64) and to monitor control (245/291; 84%; 95% CI = 80 to 88), the former having significantly increased since 2011 (from 37%; 95% CI = 33 to 41; P<0.001) with no change in monitoring for control. More than half of GPs used higher systolic thresholds for diagnosis (118/169; 70%; 95% CI = 63 to 77) and treatment (168/225; 75%; 95% CI = 69 to 80) than recommended in guidelines, and under half (120/289; 42%; 95% CI = 36 to 47) adjusted the SMBP results to guide treatment decisions.
Since new UK national guidance in 2011, GPs are more likely to use SMBP to diagnose hypertension. However, significant proportions of GPs continue to use non-standard diagnostic and monitoring thresholds. The use of out-of-office methods to improve the accuracy of diagnosis is unlikely to be beneficial if suboptimal thresholds are used.
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Self-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is ...uncertainty over the optimal self-monitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine “true” underlying blood pressure.
METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently.
RESULTS
From 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%–91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%–96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day’s measurement was necessary.
CONCLUSIONS
Home blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring.
PDF
