Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., 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— URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019127822.

Background: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive mediation evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and/or previous cardiovascular disease.\ud \ud Design and methods: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year old ‘high risk’ patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). A sub-group analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management.\ud \ud Results: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more QALYs (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year.\ud \ud Conclusion: Self-management of blood pressure in ‘high risk’ people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of health care resources.

BACKGROUND: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management. RESULTS: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year. CONCLUSION: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.

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.\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud 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.

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.