Paul A. James

2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Report From the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8)

Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and leads to myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and death if not detected early and treated appropriately. Patients want to be assured that blood pressure (BP) treatment will reduce their disease burden, while clinicians want guidance on hypertension management using the best scientific evidence. This report takes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to recommend treatment thresholds, goals, and medications in the management of hypertension in adults. Evidence was drawn from randomized controlled trials, which represent the gold standard for determining efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence quality and recommendations were graded based on their effect on important outcomes. There is strong evidence to support treating hypertensive persons aged 60 years or older to a BP goal of less than 150/90 mm Hg and hypertensive persons 30 through 59 years of age to a diastolic goal of less than 90 mm Hg; however, there is insufficient evidence in hypertensive persons younger than 60 years for a systolic goal, or in those younger than 30 years for a diastolic goal, so the panel recommends a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg for those groups based on expert opinion. The same thresholds and goals are recommended for hypertensive adults with diabetes or nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD) as for the general hypertensive population younger than 60 years. There is moderate evidence to support initiating drug treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide-type diuretic in the nonblack hypertensive population, including those with diabetes. In the black hypertensive population, including those with diabetes, a calcium channel blocker or thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy. There is moderate evidence to support initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in persons with CKD to improve kidney outcomes. Although this guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of high BP and should meet the clinical needs of most patients, these recommendations are not a substitute for clinical judgment, and decisions about care must carefully consider and incorporate the clinical characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient.

Physician and pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control.

BACKGROUND Studies have demonstrated that blood pressure (BP) control can be improved when clinical pharmacists assist with patient management. The objective of this study was to evaluate if a physician and pharmacist collaborative model in community-based medical offices could improve BP control. METHODS This was a prospective, cluster randomized, controlled clinical trial with clinics randomized to a control group (n = 3) or to an intervention group (n = 3). The study enrolled 402 patients (mean age, 58.3 years) with uncontrolled hypertension. Clinical pharmacists made drug therapy recommendations to physicians based on national guidelines. Research nurses performed BP measurements and 24-hour BP monitoring. RESULTS The mean (SD) guideline adherence scores increased from 49.4 (19.3) at baseline to 53.4 (18.1) at 6 months (8.1% increase) in the control group and from 40.4 (22.6) at baseline to 62.8 (13.5) at 6 months (55.4% increase) in the intervention group (P = .09 for adjusted between-group comparison). The mean BP decreased 6.8/4.5 mm Hg in the control group and 20.7/9.7 mm Hg in the intervention group (P < .05 for between-group systolic BP comparison). The adjusted difference in systolic BP was -12.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], -24.0 to 0.0) mm Hg, while the adjusted difference in diastolic BP was -1.8 (95% CI, -11.9 to 8.3) mm Hg. The 24-hour BP levels showed similar effect sizes. Blood pressure was controlled in 29.9% of patients in the control group and in 63.9% of patients in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0-5.1; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS A physician and pharmacist collaborative intervention achieved significantly better mean BP and overall BP control rates compared with a control group. Additional research should be conducted to evaluate efficient strategies to implement team-based chronic disease management. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00201019.

The Potency of Team-Based Care Interventions for Hypertension: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Team-based care is the strategy that has had the greatest effect on improving blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the potency of interventions for BP involving nurses or pharmacists. METHODS A MEDLINE search for controlled clinical trials that involved a nurse or pharmacist intervention was conducted. Mean reductions in systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP were determined by 2 reviewers who independently abstracted data and classified the different intervention components. RESULTS Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Education about BP medications was significantly associated with a reduction in mean BP (-8.75/-3.60 mm Hg). Other strategies that had large effect sizes on SBP include pharmacist treatment recommendations (-9.30 mm Hg), intervention by nurses (-4.80 mm Hg), and use of a treatment algorithm (-4.00 mm Hg). The odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for controlled BP were: nurses, 1.69 (1.48-1.93); pharmacists within primary care clinics, 2.17 (1.75-2.68); and community pharmacists, 2.89 (1.83-4.55). Mean (SD) reductions in SBP were: nursing studies, 5.84 (8.05) mm Hg; pharmacists in clinics, 7.76 (7.81) mm Hg; and community pharmacists, 9.31 (5.00) mm Hg. There were no significant differences between the nursing and pharmacy studies (P > or = .19). CONCLUSIONS Team-based care was associated with improved BP control, and individual components of the intervention appeared to predict potency. Implementation of new hypertension guidelines should consider changes in health care organizational structure to include important components of team-based care.

Measuring Adherence to Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension: An Evaluation of the Literature

Adherence to practice guidelines is frequently used as a measure of quality of care. Numerous studies have evaluated physician adherence to hypertension guidelines by prescription data, physician survey data, or medical record review. However, most have methodological limitations that might underestimate physician adherence. Accurate and meaningful characterization of adherence rests on evaluation of varied components of hypertension care, use of explicit validated performance measures, incorporation of implicit and explicit review, and linkage of process measures to blood pressure outcomes.

An Assessment of Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outcomes of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objectives: Patient self-care behaviors, including taking medication, following a meal plan, exercising regularly, and testing blood glucose, influence diabetes control. The purpose of this research was to identify (1) which barriers to diabetes management are associated with problem behaviors and (2) which patient behaviors and barriers are associated with diabetes control. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of linked medical record and self-reported information from patients with type 2 diabetes. A randomly selected sample of 800 clinic patients was mailed an investigator-developed survey. The study sample consisted of 253 (55%) individuals who had measured glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) within 3 months of the survey date. Results: The barriers to each diabetes self-care behavior differed. Cost was the most common barrier to the 4 self-care behaviors. In a multivariable regression model, the belief that type 2 diabetes is a serious problem and depression were strongly associated with higher HbA1c levels. Lower HbA1c levels were significantly associated with being married and greater self-reported adherence-satisfaction with taking medication and testing blood glucose. Conclusion: This study expanded earlier research by focusing on 4 specific self-care behaviors, their barriers, and their association with HbA1c. Barriers that were significantly associated with HbA1c were specific to the behavior and varied across behaviors.

Explicit and Implicit Evaluation of Physician Adherence to Hypertension Guidelines

This study evaluated physician adherence to the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) hypertension guidelines in 6 community‐based clinics. Explicit review of retrospective medical record data for patients with uncontrolled hypertension measured guideline adherence using 22 criteria. Mean overall guideline adherence was 53.5% and did not improve significantly over time. Random‐effects models demonstrated significant associations between guideline adherence and various demographic and medical predictors, including age, minority status, comorbid conditions, and number of medications. A subsequent implicit review evaluated the degree to which nonadherence was justifiable and identified factors that might have affected adherence. Nonadherence was rated as justifiable for only 6.6% of the failed explicit criteria. In general, adherence to the JNC 7 guidelines was modest even when barriers that might have affected adherence were taken into consideration.

Why Hasn't This Patient Been Screened for Colon Cancer? An Iowa Research Network Study

Background: Less than half of eligible Americans have been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study was to describe physicians’ reasons for screening or not screening specific patients for CRC and their approach to CRC testing discussions. Methods: This study used mixed-methods. Physicians described their reasons for screening or not screening 6 randomly chosen patients who were eligible for CRC screening (3 screened and 3 not screened) whose CRC testing status was ascertained by medical record review. Verbatim transcripts from physicians responding to structured interview questions were used to identify themes. Specific elements of discussion were examined for their association with each physicians screening rate. Fifteen randomly chosen Iowa family physicians from the Iowa Research Network stratified by privileges to perform colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or neither procedure dictated the reasons why 43 patients were screened and 40 patients were not screened. Results: Reasons patients were not up to date fell into 2 major categories: (1) no discussion by physician (50%) and (2) patient refusal (43%). Reasons for no discussion included lack of opportunity, assessment that cost would be prohibitive, distraction by other life issues/health problems, physician forgetfulness, and expected patient refusal. Patients declined because of cost, lack of interest, autonomy, other life issues, fear of screening, and lack of symptoms. Patients who were up to date received (1) diagnostic testing (for previous colon pathology or symptoms; 56%) or (2) asymptomatic screening (44%). Physicians who were more adamant about screening had higher screening rates (P < .05; Wilcoxon rank sum). Physicians framed their recommendations differently (“I recommend” vs “They recommend”), with lower screening rates among physicians who used “they recommend” (P = .05; Wilcoxon rank sum). Conclusions: Reasons many patients remain unscreened for CRC include (1) factors related to the health care system, patient, and physician that impede or prevent discussion; (2) patient refusal; and (3) the focus on diagnostic testing. Strategies to improve screening might include patient and physician education about the rationale for screening, universal coverage for health maintenance exams, and development of effective tracking and reminder systems. The words physicians choose to frame their recommendations are important and should be explored further.

Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Physician/Pharmacist Collaborative Model to Improve Blood Pressure Control

Background—The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a physician/pharmacist collaborative model would be implemented as determined by improved blood pressure (BP) control in primary care medical offices with diverse geographic and patient characteristics and whether long-term BP control could be sustained. Methods and Results—Prospective, cluster-randomized trial of 32 primary care offices stratified and randomized to control, 9-month intervention (brief), and 24-month intervention (sustained). We enrolled 625 subjects with uncontrolled hypertension; 54% from racial/ethnic minority groups and 50% with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome of BP control at 9 months was 43% in intervention offices (n=401) compared with 34% in the control group (n=224; adjusted odds ratio, 1.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.99–2.50]; P=0.059). The adjusted difference in mean systolic/diastolic BP between the intervention and control groups for all subjects at 9 months was −6.1/−2.9 mm Hg (P=0.002 and P=0.005, respectively), and it was −6.4/−2.9 mm Hg (P=0.009 and P=0.044, respectively) in subjects from racial or ethnic minorities. BP control and mean BP were significantly improved in subjects from racial minorities in intervention offices at 18 and 24 months (P=0.048 to P<0.001) compared with the control group. Conclusions—Although the results of the primary outcome (BP control) were negative, the key secondary end point (mean BP) was significantly improved in the intervention group. Thus, the findings for secondary end points suggest that team-based care using clinical pharmacists was implemented in diverse primary care offices and BP was reduced in subjects from racial minority groups. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00935077.

HIV/AIDS in the Rural United States: Epidemiology and Health Services Delivery

This integrated research review addresses the epidemiology of rural human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and the organization, financing, and delivery of health services for rural persons living with HIV or AIDS (PLWHIVs, PLWAs). Several abstracting services, indexing services, and bibliographies were searched. An annotation form served as the guideline for data extraction. Several conclusions emerged from this review. Epidemiological evidence indicates that there has been a dramatic increase in the relative proportion of rural HIV/AIDS incident cases over the past 5 years. Explanations for the rural increase focus on injection drug use, heterosexual behavior, and sexually transmitted disease levels. Dramatically elevated rates of infection in rural Black women are indicated. Rural areas experience important levels of in-migration of HIV/AIDS-infected individuals. The health services literature suggests that rural providers and institutions have limited resources and little experience with PLWHIVs or PLWAs.

Generalist solutions to complex problems: generating practice-based evidence - the example of managing multi-morbidity.

BackgroundA growing proportion of people are living with long term conditions. The majority have more than one. Dealing with multi-morbidity is a complex problem for health systems: for those designing and implementing healthcare as well as for those providing the evidence informing practice. Yet the concept of multi-morbidity (the presence of >2 diseases) is a product of the design of health care systems which define health care need on the basis of disease status. So does the solution lie in an alternative model of healthcare?DiscussionStrengthening generalist practice has been proposed as part of the solution to tackling multi-morbidity. Generalism is a professional philosophy of practice, deeply known to many practitioners, and described as expertise in whole person medicine. But generalism lacks the evidence base needed by policy makers and planners to support service redesign. The challenge is to fill this practice-research gap in order to critically explore if and when generalist care offers a robust alternative to management of this complex problem.We need practice-based evidence to fill this gap. By recognising generalist practice as a ‘complex intervention’ (intervening in a complex system), we outline an approach to evaluate impact using action-research principles. We highlight the implications for those who both commission and undertake research in order to tackle this problem.SummaryAnswers to the complex problem of multi-morbidity won’t come from doing more of the same. We need to change systems of care, and so the systems for generating evidence to support that care. This paper contributes to that work through outlining a process for generating practice-based evidence of generalist solutions to the complex problem of person-centred care for people with multi-morbidity.