Search

Background Hypertension guidelines recommend screening and treatment for masked hypertension (MHT). Yet, few primary care providers (PCPs) screen for MHT, and little is known about PCP awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward MHT. Methods Three focus groups involving 30 PCPs from 3 medical centers in New York were conducted. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results Awareness of MHT varied, and only 2 providers had diagnosed MHT. There was also low knowledge about the prevalence and impact of MHT. While some PCPs were receptive to MHT screening after learning about its significance, others viewed the current evidence as insufficient to change practice. Providers were discomforted by labeling patients with nonelevated office blood pressure (BP) as hypertensive and reluctant to add another screening test to their workload without stronger evidence. There was distrust in the accuracy of home BP monitoring to screen for MHT. There was more confidence in ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) for MHT screening, but ABPM was viewed as largely inaccessible. There was broad agreement with lifestyle changes for MHT. There were concerns that antihypertensive medication lacked evidence from randomized trials and could induce harmful side effects. Conclusions Limited PCP knowledge about MHT, concerns about the accuracy and accessibility of screening tests, overloaded PCPs, and insufficient evidence were major barriers to screening and treatment for MHT. Prior to broad uptake by PCPs, randomized trials demonstrating the net benefits of MHT screening and treatment may be needed, along with increased dissemination of knowledge about MHT and improved access to ABPM.

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend that patients with newly elevated office blood pressure undergo ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to rule-out white coat hypertension before being diagnosed with hypertension. We explored patients’ perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to undergoing ABPM or HBPM. METHODS Focus groups were conducted with twenty English- and Spanish-speaking individuals from underserved communities in New York City. Two researchers analyzed transcripts using a conventional content analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in ABPM and HBPM. RESULTS Participants described favorable attitudes toward testing including readily understanding white coat hypertension, agreeing with the rationale for out-of-office testing, and believing that testing would benefit patients. Regarding ABPM, participants expressed concerns over the representativeness of the day the test was performed and the intrusiveness of the frequent readings. Regarding HBPM, participants expressed concerns over the validity of the monitoring method and the reliability of home blood pressure devices. For both tests, participants noted that out-of-pocket costs may deter patient participation and felt that patients would require detailed information about the test itself before deciding to participate. Participants overwhelmingly believed that out-of-office testing benefits outweighed testing barriers, were confident that they could successfully complete either testing if recommended by their provider, and described the rationale for their testing preference. CONCLUSIONS Participants identified dominant barriers and facilitators to ABPM and HBPM testing, articulated testing preferences, and believed that they could successfully complete out-of-office testing if recommended by their provider.

BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment in non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites according to 2014 US hypertension treatment guidelines. METHODS: The cardiovascular disease (CVD) policy model simulated CVD events, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and treatment costs in 35- to 74-year-old adults with untreated hypertension. CVD incidence, mortality, and risk factor levels were obtained from cohort studies, hospital registries, vital statistics, and national surveys. Stage 1 hypertension was defined as blood pressure 140-149/90-99mm Hg; stage 2 hypertension as ≥150/100mm Hg. Probabilistic input distribution sampling informed 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) < $50,000/QALY gained were considered cost-effective. RESULTS: Treating 0.7 million hypertensive non-Hispanic black adults would prevent about 8,000 CVD events annually; treating 3.4 million non-Hispanic whites would prevent about 35,000 events. Overall 2014 guideline implementation would be cost saving in both groups compared with no treatment. For stage 1 hypertension but without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, cost savings extended to non-Hispanic black males ages 35-44 but not same-aged non-Hispanic white males (ICER $57,000/QALY; 95% UI $15,000-$100,000) and cost-effectiveness extended to non-Hispanic black females ages 35-44 (ICER $46,000/QALY; $17,000-$76,000) but not same-aged non-Hispanic white females (ICER $181,000/QALY; $111,000-$235,000). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-Hispanic whites, cost-effectiveness of implementing hypertension guidelines would extend to a larger proportion of non-Hispanic black hypertensive patients.