Richard J McManus

Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial

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.

Cost-effectiveness of options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: A modelling study

BACKGROUND The diagnosis of hypertension has traditionally been based on blood-pressure measurements in the clinic, but home and ambulatory measurements better correlate with cardiovascular outcome, and ambulatory monitoring is more accurate than both clinic and home monitoring in diagnosing hypertension. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies for hypertension. METHODS We did a Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. We used a hypothetical primary-care population aged 40 years or older with a screening blood-pressure measurement greater than 140/90 mm Hg and risk-factor prevalence equivalent to the general population. We compared three diagnostic strategies-further blood pressure measurement in the clinic, at home, and with an ambulatory monitor-in terms of lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years, and cost-effectiveness. FINDINGS Ambulatory monitoring was the most cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of hypertension for men and women of all ages. It was cost-saving for all groups (from -£56 [95% CI -105 to -10] in men aged 75 years to -£323 [-389 to -222] in women aged 40 years) and resulted in more quality-adjusted life years for men and women older than 50 years (from 0·006 [0·000 to 0·015] for women aged 60 years to 0·022 [0·012 to 0·035] for men aged 70 years). This finding was robust when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case, but was sensitive if home monitoring was judged to have equal test performance to ambulatory monitoring or if treatment was judged effective irrespective of whether an individual was hypertensive. INTERPRETATION Ambulatory monitoring as a diagnostic strategy for hypertension after an initial raised reading in the clinic would reduce misdiagnosis and save costs. Additional costs from ambulatory monitoring are counterbalanced by cost savings from better targeted treatment. Ambulatory monitoring is recommended for most patients before the start of antihypertensive drugs. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Effect of Self-monitoring and Medication Self-titration on Systolic Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease The TASMIN-SR Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

NICE hypertension guideline 2011: evidence based evolution

Richard McManus, Mark Caulfield, Bryan Williams respond to criticisms of the 2011 NICE guideline, arguing that it reflects the reduced costs of generic drugs and new evidence on cardiovascular risk reduction

Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To systematically review studies quantifying the associations of long term (clinic), mid-term (home), and short term (ambulatory) variability in blood pressure, independent of mean blood pressure, with cardiovascular disease events and mortality. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Web of Science, searched to 15 February 2016 for full text articles in English. Eligibility criteria for study selection Prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in adults, except those in patients receiving haemodialysis, where the condition may directly impact blood pressure variability. Standardised hazard ratios were extracted and, if there was little risk of confounding, combined using random effects meta-analysis in main analyses. Outcomes included all cause and cardiovascular disease mortality and cardiovascular disease events. Measures of variability included standard deviation, coefficient of variation, variation independent of mean, and average real variability, but not night dipping or day-night variation. Results 41 papers representing 19 observational cohort studies and 17 clinical trial cohorts, comprising 46 separate analyses were identified. Long term variability in blood pressure was studied in 24 papers, mid-term in four, and short-term in 15 (two studied both long term and short term variability). Results from 23 analyses were excluded from main analyses owing to high risks of confounding. Increased long term variability in systolic blood pressure was associated with risk of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.22), cardiovascular disease mortality (1.18, 1.09 to 1.28), cardiovascular disease events (1.18, 1.07 to 1.30), coronary heart disease (1.10, 1.04 to 1.16), and stroke (1.15, 1.04 to 1.27). Increased mid-term and short term variability in daytime systolic blood pressure were also associated with all cause mortality (1.15, 1.06 to 1.26 and 1.10, 1.04 to 1.16, respectively). Conclusions Long term variability in blood pressure is associated with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes, over and above the effect of mean blood pressure. Associations are similar in magnitude to those of cholesterol measures with cardiovascular disease. Limited data for mid-term and short term variability showed similar associations. Future work should focus on the clinical implications of assessment of variability in blood pressure and avoid the common confounding pitfalls observed to date. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014015695.

Clinical score and rapid antigen detection test to guide antibiotic use for sore throats: randomised controlled trial of PRISM (primary care streptococcal management)

Objective To determine the effect of clinical scores that predict streptococcal infection or rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests compared with delayed antibiotic prescribing. Design Open adaptive pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care in United Kingdom. Patients Patients aged ≥3 with acute sore throat. Intervention An internet programme randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to: delayed antibiotics (the comparator group for analyses), clinical score, or antigen test used according to clinical score. During the trial a preliminary streptococcal score (score 1, n=1129) was replaced by a more consistent score (score 2, n=631; features: fever during previous 24 hours; purulence; attends rapidly (within three days after onset of symptoms); inflamed tonsils; no cough/coryza (acronym FeverPAIN). Outcomes Symptom severity reported by patients on a 7 point Likert scale (mean severity of sore throat/difficulty swallowing for days two to four after the consultation (primary outcome)), duration of symptoms, use of antibiotics. Results For score 1 there were no significant differences between groups. For score 2, symptom severity was documented in 80% (168/207 (81%) in delayed antibiotics group; 168/211 (80%) in clinical score group; 166/213 (78%) in antigen test group). Reported severity of symptoms was lower in the clinical score group (−0.33, 95% confidence interval −0.64 to −0.02; P=0.04), equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight versus moderate problem, with a similar reduction for the antigen test group (−0.30, −0.61 to −0.00; P=0.05). Symptoms rated moderately bad or worse resolved significantly faster in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.63) but not the antigen test group (1.11, 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed antibiotics group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics. Use of antibiotics in the clinical score group (60/161) was 29% lower (adjusted risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.95; P=0.02) and in the antigen test group (58/164) was 27% lower (0.73, 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). There were no significant differences in complications or reconsultations. Conclusion Targeted use of antibiotics for acute sore throat with a clinical score improves reported symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. Antigen tests used according to a clinical score provide similar benefits but with no clear advantages over a clinical score alone. Trial registration ISRCTN32027234

Evaluation of the management of heart failure in primary care

BACKGROUND The extent to which guidelines for the treatment of heart failure are currently followed in primary care in the UK is unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the prevalence of heart failure and the pharmacological management of heart failure in relation to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. METHODS Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data from 163 general practices across Great Britain contributing data to the Doctors Independent Network (DIN-LINK) database over a 5-year period until December 31, 2006. RESULTS From a patient population of nearly 1.43 million, 9311 patients with heart failure were identified [mean age 78 years (SD 12)], giving an estimated prevalence of 0.7%. Of these, 7410 (79.6%) were prescribed a loop diuretic, 6620 (71.1%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or ARB, 3403 (36.6%) were prescribed beta-blockers but only 2732 (29.3%) were prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB and a beta-blocker in combination. Thirty-five per cent of patients prescribed ACE inhibitor and 11.5% of those prescribed beta-blockers met ESC guideline target doses. Age, gender and comorbidity predicted whether patients received beta-blocker or ACE inhibitor with younger males being more likely to receive maximal therapy. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that while most patients with heart failure receive an ACE inhibitor/ARB in primary care, few are titrated to target dose and many do not receive a beta-blocker. Optimum treatment appears to be most likely for young men. New strategies are required to ensure equitable and optimal treatment for all.

Methodology and technology for peripheral and central blood pressure and blood pressure variability measurement: Current status and future directions - Position statement of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring and cardiovascular variability

Office blood pressure measurement has been the basis for hypertension evaluation for almost a century. However, the evaluation of blood pressure out of the office using ambulatory or self-home monitoring is now strongly recommended for the accurate diagnosis in many, if not all, cases with suspected hypertension. Moreover, there is evidence that the variability of blood pressure might offer prognostic information that is independent of the average blood pressure level. Recently, advancement in technology has provided noninvasive evaluation of central (aortic) blood pressure, which might have attributes that are additive to the conventional brachial blood pressure measurement. This position statement, developed by international experts, deals with key research and practical issues in regard to peripheral blood pressure measurement (office, home, and ambulatory), blood pressure variability, and central blood pressure measurement. The objective is to present current achievements, identify gaps in knowledge and issues concerning clinical application, and present relevant research questions and directions to investigators and manufacturers for future research and development (primary goal).

The Effect of Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure on Medication Adherence and Lifestyle Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND Self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) can contribute to reduced blood pressure in people with hypertension. Potential mediators include increased medication, improved adherence, and changes in lifestyle factors including dietary change and increased physical activity. The objective of this review was to determine the effect of SMBP on medication adherence, medication persistence, and lifestyle factors in people with hypertension. METHODS Electronic bibliographic databases were searched through February 2014 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared SMBP to control/usual care in ambulatory hypertensive patients and reported medication or nonpharmacologic treatment adherence measures. RESULTS Twenty-eight trials with 7,021 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Medication adherence was assessed in 25 trials (89%), dietary outcomes in 8 (29%), physical activity in 6 (21%), and medication persistence in 1 (4%). Blood pressure was assessed in 26 studies (93%). Follow-up ranged from 2 weeks to 12 months. Pooled results of 13 studies demonstrated a small but significant overall effect on medication adherence in favor of SMBP interventions (standardized mean difference 0.21, 95% CI 0.08, 0.34), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 43%). Standardized mean difference was used to express the size of intervention effect in each study relative to the variability observed, and was used to combine the results of studies where different measures of medication adherence were used. Where SMBP interventions had a significant effect on lifestyle factor change, the effect was unlikely to be clinically significant. Pooled results of 11 studies demonstrate a significant overall effect on diastolic blood pressure in favor of SMBP (weighted mean difference -2.02, 95% CI -2.93, -1.11), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). A test for subgroup differences showed no difference when studies were grouped according to whether medication adherence was significantly improved or not. CONCLUSIONS SMBP may contribute to improvements in medication adherence in hypertensives. However, evidence for the effect of SMBP on lifestyle change and medication persistence is scarce, of poor quality, and suggests little clinically relevant benefit.

Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aims: Self-monitoring and self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) is a novel intervention which improves blood pressure control. However, little evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood pressure in general and self-management in particular. This study aimed to evaluate whether self-management of hypertension was cost-effective. Design and methods: A cohort Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken extrapolating to up to 35 years from cost and outcome data collected from the telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2). Self-management of hypertension was compared with usual care in terms of lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness using a UK Health Service perspective. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness over time from self-management. Results: In the long-term, when compared with usual care, self-management was more effective by 0.24 and 0.12 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient for men and women, respectively. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for self-management was £1624 per QALY for men and £4923 per QALY for women. There was at least a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective for both sexes at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses around the assumptions made, provided that the effects of self-management lasted at least two years for men and five years for women. Conclusion: Self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives and telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of health care resources.