Search

Background: Results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive control of systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment, but not probable dementia. We investigated the effects of intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure on specific cognitive functions in a preplanned substudy of participants from SPRINT., Methods: SPRINT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial undertaken at 102 sites, including academic medical centres, Veterans Affairs medical centres, hospitals, and independent clinics, in the USA and Puerto Rico. Participants were adults aged 50 years or older with systolic blood pressure higher than 130 mm Hg, but without diabetes, history of stroke, or dementia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). All major classes of antihypertensive agents were included. A subgroup of randomly assigned participants including, but not limited to, participants enrolled in an MRI substudy was then selected for a concurrent substudy of cognitive function (target 2800 participants). Each individual was assessed with a screening cognitive test battery and an extended cognitive test battery at baseline and biennially during the planned 4-year follow-up. The primary outcomes for this substudy were standardised composite scores for memory (Logical Memory I and II, Modified Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure [immediate recall], and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [delayed recall]) and processing speed (Trail Making Test and Digit Symbol Coding). SPRINT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01206062., Findings: From Nov 23, 2010, to Dec 28, 2012, 2921 participants (mean age 68·4 years [SD 8·6], 1080 [37%] women) who had been randomly assigned in SPRINT were enrolled in the substudy (1448 received intensive treatment and 1473 received standard treatment). SPRINT was terminated early due to benefit observed in the primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular events). After a median follow-up of 4·1 years (IQR 3·7-5·8), there was no between-group difference in memory, with an annual decline in mean standardised domain score of -0·005 (95% CI -0·010 to 0·001) in the intensive treatment group and -0·001 (-0·006 to 0·005) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference -0·004, 95% CI -0·012 to 0·004; p=0·33). Mean standardised processing speed domain scores declined more in the intensive treatment group (between-group difference -0·010, 95% CI -0·017 to -0·002; p=0·02), with an annual decline of -0·025 (-0·030 to -0·019) for the intensive treatment group and -0·015 (-0·021 to 0·009) for the standard treatment group., Interpretation: Intensive treatment to lower systolic blood pressure did not result in a clinically relevant difference compared with standard treatment in memory or processing speed in a subgroup of participants from SPRINT. The effect of blood pressure lowering might not be evident in specific domains of cognitive function, but instead distributed across multiple domains., Funding: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Alzheimer's Association., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: It is unclear whether the presence of albuminuria modifies the effects of intensive systolic BP control on risk of eGFR decline, cardiovascular events, or mortality., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial randomized nondiabetic adults ≥50 years of age at high cardiovascular risk to a systolic BP target of <120 or <140 mm Hg, measured by automated office BP. We compared the absolute risk differences and hazard ratios of ≥40% eGFR decline, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial primary cardiovascular composite outcome, and all-cause death in those with or without baseline albuminuria (urine albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g)., Results: Over a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 69 of 1723 (4%) participants with baseline albuminuria developed ≥40% eGFR decline compared with 61 of 7162 (1%) participants without albuminuria. Incidence rates of ≥40% eGFR decline were higher in participants with albuminuria (intensive, 1.74 per 100 person-years; standard, 1.17 per 100 person-years) than in participants without albuminuria (intensive, 0.48 per 100 person-years; standard, 0.11 per 100 person-years). Although effects of intensive BP lowering on ≥40% eGFR decline varied by albuminuria on the relative scale (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 2.39 for albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g; hazard ratio, 4.55; 95% confidence interval, 2.37 to 8.75 for albumin-creatinine ratio <30 mg/g; P value for interaction <0.001), the absolute increase in ≥40% eGFR decline did not differ by baseline albuminuria (incidence difference, 0.38 events per 100 person-years for albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g; incidence difference, 0.58 events per 100 person-years for albumin-creatinine ratio <30 mg/g; P value for interaction =0.60). Albuminuria did not significantly modify the beneficial effects of intensive systolic BP lowering on cardiovascular events or mortality evaluated on relative or absolute scales., Conclusions: Albuminuria did not modify the absolute benefits and risks of intensive systolic BP lowering., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Objectives: Concern about falling is common among older hypertension patients and could impact decisions to intensify blood pressure therapy. Our aim was to determine whether intensive therapy targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 120 mm Hg is associated with greater changes in concern about falling when compared with standard therapy targeting an SBP of 140 mm Hg., Design: Subsample analysis of participants randomized to either intensive or standard therapy in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)., Setting: Approximately 100 outpatient sites., Participants: A total of 2313 enrollees in SPRINT; participants were all age 50 or older (mean = 69 y) and diagnosed with hypertension., Measurements: Concern about falling was described by the shortened version of the Falls Efficacy Scale International as measured at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter., Results: Concern about falling showed a small but significant increase over time among all hypertension patients. No differences were noted, however, among those randomized to intensive vs standard therapy (P = .95). Among participants younger than 75 years, no increase in concern about falling over time was noted, but among participants aged 75 years and older, the mean falls self-efficacy score increased by .3 points per year (P < .0001). No differences were observed between the intensive and standard treatment groups when stratified by age (P = .55)., Conclusion: Intensive blood pressure therapy is not associated with increased concern about falling among older hypertension patients healthy enough to participate in SPRINT. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:614-618, 2020., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in older adults with hypertension, considering cognitive and physical function., Design: Secondary analysis., Setting: Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) PARTICIPANTS: Adults 80 years or older., Intervention: Participants with hypertension but without diabetes (N = 1167) were randomized to an SBP target below 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) vs a target below 140 mm Hg (standard treatment)., Measurements: We measured the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mortality, changes in renal function, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), probable dementia, and serious adverse events. Gait speed was assessed via a 4-m walk test, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to quantify baseline cognitive function., Results: Intensive treatment led to significant reductions in cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] = .66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .49-.90), mortality (HR = .67; 95% CI = .48-.93), and MCI (HR = .70; 95% CI = .51-.96). There was a significant interaction (P < .001) whereby participants with higher baseline scores on the MoCA derived strong benefit from intensive treatment for a composite of CVD and mortality (HR = .40; 95% CI = .28-.57), with no appreciable benefit in participants with lower scores on the MoCA (HR = 1.33 = 95% CI = .87-2.03). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects with respect to gait speed. Rates of acute kidney injury and declines of at least 30% in estimated glomerular filtration rate were increased in the intensive treatment group with no between-group differences in the rate of injurious falls., Conclusion: In adults aged 80 years or older, intensive SBP control lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events, MCI, and death, with increased risk of changes to kidney function. The cardiovascular and mortality benefits of intensive SBP control may not extend to older adults with lower baseline cognitive function., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:496-504, 2020., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Introduction: The effect of intensive blood pressure control upon erectile function in men with hypertension, but without diabetes, is largely unknown., Aim: To examine the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering on erectile function in a multiethnic clinical trial of men with hypertension., Methods: We performed subgroup analyses from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial ([SPRINT]; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT120602, in a sample of 1255 men aged 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular disease risk. Participants were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment group (SBP goal of <120 mmHg) or a standard treatment group (SBP goal of <140 mmHg)., Main Outcome Measure: The main outcome measure was change in erectile function from baseline, using the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) total score, and erectile dysfunction ([ED]; defined as IIEF-5 score ≤21) after a median follow-up of 3 years., Results: At baseline, roughly two-thirds (66.1%) of the sample had self-reported ED. At 48 months after randomization, we determined that the effects of more intensive blood pressure lowering were significantly moderated by race-ethnicity (p for interaction = 0.0016), prompting separate analyses stratified by race-ethnicity. In non-Hispanic whites, participants in the intensive treatment group reported slightly, but significantly better change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard treatment group (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.03, 1.32; P = 0.041). In non-Hispanic blacks, participants in the intensive group reported slightly worse change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard group (mean difference = -1.17; 95% CI = -1.92, -0.41; P = 0.0025). However, in non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, further adjustment for the baseline IIEF-5 score resulted in nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) according to the treatment group. In Hispanic/other participants, there were no significant differences in change in the IIEF-5 score between the two treatment groups (P = 0.40). In a subgroup of 280 participants who did not report ED at baseline, the incidence of ED did not differ in the two treatment groups (P = 0.53) and was without interaction by race-ethnicity., Clinical Implications: The effect of intensive treatment of blood pressure on erectile function was very small overall and likely not of great clinical magnitude., Strength & Limitations: Although this study included a validated measure of erectile function, testosterone, other androgen, and estrogen levels were not assessed., Conclusion: In a sample of male patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in statistically significant effects on erectile function that differed in accordance with race-ethnicity, although the clinical importance of the differences may be of small magnitude. Foy CG, Newman JC, Russell GB, et al. Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Treatment Upon Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Findings From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. J Sex Med 2020;17:238-248., (Copyright © 2019 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinicians are often uncertain about how to manage elevated blood pressure (BP) when a patient reports that he/she has recently missed several doses of antihypertensive medications. While we know that better adherence can improve BP during several months, the magnitude of this relationship in the short term is poorly understood. The authors examined this issue using a group of patients who monitored adherence using a Medication Events Monitoring System (MEMS) cap and had BP measurements in the course of routine clinical practice. BP readings were compared following 7 days of excellent adherence (100%) or poor adherence (< 60%), omitting BP values following intermediate adherence. Using several different methods, BP following 7 days of excellent adherence was between 12/7 mm Hg and 15/8 mm Hg lower than after 7 days of poor adherence. Clinicians can use this effect size to calibrate their impressions of what the BP might have been with improved adherence., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Racial disparities in blood pressure (BP) control are well documented but poorly understood; prior studies have only included a limited range of potential explanatory factors. We examined a comprehensive set of putative factors related to blood pressure control, including patient clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs about BP and BP medications, medication adherence, and experiences of discrimination, to determine if the impact of race on BP control remains after accounting for such factors., Methods and Results: We recruited 806 white and black patients with hypertension from an urban safety-net hospital. From a questionnaire administered to patients after their clinic visits, electronic medical record and BP data, we assessed an array of patient factors. We then examined the association of patient factors with BP control by modeling it as a function of the covariates using random-effects logistic regression. Blacks indicated worse medication adherence, more discrimination, and more concerns about high BP and BP medications, compared with whites. After accounting for all factors, race was no longer a significant predictor of BP control., Conclusions: Results suggest that equalizing patients' health beliefs, medication adherence, and experiences with care could ameliorate disparities in BP control. Additional attention must focus on the factors associated with race to identify, and ultimately intervene on, the causes of racial disparities in BP outcomes.

More intensive management can improve control blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients. However, many would posit that treatment intensification (TI) is not beneficial in the face of suboptimal adherence. We investigated whether the effect of TI on BP varies by adherence. We enrolled 819 patients with hypertension, managed in primary care at an academically-affiliated inner-city hospital. We used the following formula to characterize TI: (visits with a medication change-visits with elevated BP)/total visits. Adherence was characterized using electronic monitoring devices ("MEMS caps"). Patients who returned their MEMS caps (671) were divided into quartiles of adherence, whereas patients who did not return their MEMS caps (148) had "missing" adherence. We examined the relationship between TI and the final systolic blood pressure (SBP), controlling for patient-level covariates. In the entire sample, each additional therapy increase per 10 visits predicted a 2.0 mm Hg decrease in final SBP (P<0.001). After stratifying by adherence, in the "best" adherence quartile each therapy increase predicted a 2.1-mm Hg decrease in final SBP, followed by 1.8 for the "next-best" adherence quartile, 2.3 in the third quartile, and 2.4 in the "worst" adherence quartile. The effect size for patients with "missing" adherence was 1.6 mm Hg. The differences between the group with "best" adherence and the other 4 groups were not statistically significant. In this observational study, treatment intensification was associated with similar BP improvement regardless of the patient's level of adherence. A randomized trial could further examine optimal management of patients with suboptimal adherence.

Objectives: To determine the relationship between blood pressure (BP) and all-cause mortality in subjects aged 80 and older with hypertension., Design: Retrospective cohort study with 5 years of follow-up., Setting: Ten Veterans AFFAIRS (VA) sites., Participants: Four thousand seventy-one ambulatory patients aged 80 and older with hypertension., Measurements: The outcome measure was likelihood of survival during the follow-up period. Vital status was obtained from VA and Social Security files. Variables collected for adjustment in Cox regression models were baseline BP, medications, demographics, diagnoses, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL); HRQoL information was available on 1,289 subjects based on Veterans Health Study Short From-36 (SF-36) questionnaire scores., Results: Subjects with higher BP (up to a systolic BP (SBP) of 139 mmHg and a diastolic BP (DBP) of 89 mmHg) were less likely to die during follow-up than subjects with lower BP. After baseline adjustments, the hazard ratio for a 10-point increase in SBP was 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.74-0.91), up to a SBP of 139 mmHg, and for DBP was 0.85 (95% CI=0.78-0.92), up to a DBP of 89 mmHg. There was no significant association between survival and BP levels in subjects with uncontrolled hypertension., Conclusion: In a cohort of very old, hypertensive veterans, in subjects with controlled BPs, subjects with lower BP levels had a lower 5-year survival than those with higher BPs. This suggests that clinicians should use caution in their approach to BP lowering in this age group.

Background: Despite guidelines recommending similar blood pressure (BP) treatment goals regardless of age, controversy exists regarding treating those > or = 80 years of age. Whether this affects current practice in terms of differences in BP control and number of prescribed antihypertensives by age is unknown., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 59,207 outpatients with hypertension treated at 10 Veterans Health Administration sites. Outcome measures were BP control (< 140/90 mm Hg) and number of antihypertensive medications at the patient's last study visit. Uncontrolled BP was also categorized by whether systolic, diastolic, or both were elevated., Results: Subjects 40 to 49 years and those 50 to 59 years of age had better BP control (adjusted odds ratios 1.35 [95% CI = 1.26 to 1.44] and 1.22 [CI = 1.17 to 1.28] respectively) compared with subjects 60 to 69 years of age; those 70 to 79 years of age and > or = 80 years had worse control (OR = 0.92 for both; respective CIs = 0.88 to 0.96 and 0.86 to 0.99). Antihypertensive medication use increased by successive decade to age 80 years, after which the trend reversed. Adjusted mean number of medications by age were: < 40 years, 2.60; 40 to 49, 2.82; 50 to 59, 2.91; 60 to 69, 3.01; 70 to 79, 3.03; > or = 80 years, 2.90 (P < .05 in pairwise comparisons). The trend of number of medications by age did not vary across hypertension categories, despite systolic hypertension increasing and diastolic hypertension decreasing with age. Subjects < 40 years of age were taking the fewest medications, followed by subjects > or = 80 years and then by those 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 70 to 79, and 60 to 69 years of age., Conclusions: The oldest hypertension patients, despite worse BP control, are being treated less aggressively with fewer medications than their younger counterparts (those 60 to 79 years of age). Our results suggest that current controversy in treating the oldest hypertensive patients is having an impact on actual practice.

The article discusses the concept of therapeutic inertia in the management of hypertension by primary care physicians. Therapeutic inertia refers to the failure to intensify medications in the face of inadequate blood pressure control. While there have been improvements in hypertension control in the past, recent studies suggest a decline in the quality of care and a persistence of therapeutic inertia. The article raises questions about the existence and significance of therapeutic inertia and suggests considering alternative models of care, such as involving nonphysician team members in medication management. [Extracted from the article]

Total medication burden (antihypertensive and nonantihypertensive medications) may be associated with poor systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. We investigated the association of baseline medication burden and clinical outcomes and whether the effect of the SBP intervention varied according to baseline medication burden in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Participants were randomized to intensive or standard SBP goal (below 120 or 140 mm Hg, respectively); n=3769 participants with high baseline medication burden (≥5 medications) and n=5592 with low burden (<5 medications). Primary outcome: differences in SBP. Secondary outcomes: 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale and modified Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medications measured at baseline and 12 months and incident cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events throughout the trial. Participants in the intensive group with high versus low medication burden were less likely to achieve their SBP goal at 12 months (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97) but not in the standard group (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03; Pinteraction<0.001). High medication burden was associated with increased cardiovascular disease events (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.14-1.70) and serious adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.24-1.45), but the effect of intensive versus standard treatment did not vary between medication burden groups ( Pinteraction>0.5). Medication burden had minimal association with adherence or satisfaction. High baseline medication burden was associated with worse intensive SBP control and higher rates of cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events. The relative benefits and risks of intensive SBP goals were similar regardless of medication burden. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The previously published results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial showed that among participants with hypertension and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, the rates of cardiovascular events were lower among those who were assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) than among those who were assigned to a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). Whether such intensive treatment affected patient-reported outcomes was uncertain; those results from the trial are reported here.Methods: We randomly assigned 9361 participants with hypertension to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg or a target of less than 140 mm Hg. Patient-reported outcome measures included the scores on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression scale (PHQ-9), patient-reported satisfaction with their blood-pressure care and blood-pressure medications, and adherence to blood-pressure medications. We compared the scores in the intensive-treatment group with those in the standard-treatment group among all participants and among participants stratified according to physical and cognitive function.Results: Participants who received intensive treatment received an average of one additional antihypertensive medication, and the systolic blood pressure was 14.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 14.3 to 15.4) lower in the group that received intensive treatment than in the group that received standard treatment. Mean PCS, MCS, and PHQ-9 scores were relatively stable over a median of 3 years of follow-up, with no significant differences between the two treatment groups. No significant differences between the treatment groups were noted when participants were stratified according to baseline measures of physical or cognitive function. Satisfaction with blood-pressure care was high in both treatment groups, and we found no significant difference in adherence to blood-pressure medications.Conclusions: Patient-reported outcomes among participants who received intensive treatment, which targeted a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, were similar to those among participants who received standard treatment, including among participants with decreased physical or cognitive function. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The appropriate treatment target for systolic blood pressure (SBP) in older patients with hypertension remains uncertain.Objective: To evaluate the effects of intensive (<120 mm Hg) compared with standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP targets in persons aged 75 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes.Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial of patients aged 75 years or older who participated in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Recruitment began on October 20, 2010, and follow-up ended on August 20, 2015.Interventions: Participants were randomized to an SBP target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group, n = 1317) or an SBP target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group, n = 1319).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary cardiovascular disease outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in a myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute decompensated heart failure, and death from cardiovascular causes. All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome.Results: Among 2636 participants (mean age, 79.9 years; 37.9% women), 2510 (95.2%) provided complete follow-up data. At a median follow-up of 3.14 years, there was a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome (102 events in the intensive treatment group vs 148 events in the standard treatment group; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]) and all-cause mortality (73 deaths vs 107 deaths, respectively; HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]). The overall rate of serious adverse events was not different between treatment groups (48.4% in the intensive treatment group vs 48.3% in the standard treatment group; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]). Absolute rates of hypotension were 2.4% in the intensive treatment group vs 1.4% in the standard treatment group (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 0.97-3.09]), 3.0% vs 2.4%, respectively, for syncope (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.76-2.00]), 4.0% vs 2.7% for electrolyte abnormalities (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 0.99-2.33]), 5.5% vs 4.0% for acute kidney injury (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.98-2.04]), and 4.9% vs 5.5% for injurious falls (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.65-1.29]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among ambulatory adults aged 75 years or older, treating to an SBP target of less than 120 mm Hg compared with an SBP target of less than 140 mm Hg resulted in significantly lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor blood pressure (BP) control and racial disparities therein may be a function of clinical inertia and ineffective communication about BP care.Methods: We compared two different interventions (electronic medical record reminder for BP care (Reminder only, [RO]), and clinician training on BP care-related communication skills plus the reminder (Reminder + Training, [R+T]) with usual care in three primary care clinics, examining BP outcomes among 8,866 patients, and provider-patient communication and medication adherence among a subsample of 793.Results: Clinician counseling improved most at R+T. BP improved overall; R+T had a small but significantly greater reduction in diastolic BP (DBP; -1.7 mm Hg). White patients at RO experienced greater overall improvements in BP control. Site and race disparities trends suggested that disparities decreased at R+T, either stayed the same or decreased at Control; and stayed the same or increased at RO.Conclusions: More substantial or racial/ethnically tailored interventions are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disparities in blood pressure (BP) control may be a function of disparities in treatment intensification (TI).Objective: To examine racial differences in TI, understand modifiable factors that may mediate this relationship, and explore the relative effects of TI and race on blood pressure.Design: Prospective cohort study.Participants: Participants were 819 black and white patients with hypertension from an urban, safety-net hospitalMain Measures: We sequentially explored the effects of patient race, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, beliefs about BP/medications, perceptions of provider/discrimination, sodium intake, medication adherence, and provider counseling on TI, performing a series of random effects analyses. To assess the effects of race and TI on BP, we performed linear regressions, using systolic BP (SBP) as the outcome.Key Results: Unadjusted analyses and those including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics revealed that black patients had less TI than whites (-0.31 vs.-0.24, p < 0.001), but adjustment for patient beliefs and experiences eliminated the effects of race (beta =-0.02, p = 0.5). Increased patient concerns about BP medications were related to lower TI, as was more provider counseling (beta =-0.06, p = 0.02 and beta = -0.01, p = 0.001, respectively). In the unadjusted analysis, black race was a significant predictor of SBP (134 mm/Hg for blacks vs. 131 mm/Hg for whites, p = 0.009), but when both race and TI were included in the model, TI was a significant predictor of SBP (final SBP 2.0 mm/Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, p < 0.001), while race was not (Blacks 1.6 mm/Hg higher than whites, p = 0.17).Conclusions: Improved patient-provider communication targeted towards addressing patient concerns about medications may have the potential to reduce racial disparities in TI and ultimately, BP control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Greater treatment intensification (TI) improves hypertension control. However, we do not know the ideal way to measure TI for research and quality improvement efforts. We compared the ability of different TI measures to predict blood pressure (BP) control.Methods and Results: We enrolled 819 hypertensive outpatients from an urban academic hospital. Each patient was assigned 3 scores to characterize TI. The any/none score divides patients into those who had any therapy increases during the study versus none. The norm-based method models the chance of a medication increase at each visit, then scores each patient based on whether they received more or fewer medication increases than predicted. The standard-based method is similar to the norm-based method but expects a medication increase whenever the blood pressure is uncontrolled. We compared the ability of these scores to predict the final systolic blood pressure (SBP). The any/none score showed a paradoxical result: any therapy increase was associated with SBP 4.6 mm Hg higher than no increase (P<0.001). The norm-based method score did not predict SBP in a linear fashion (P=0.18); further investigation revealed a U-shaped relationship between the norm-based method score and SBP. However, the standard-based method score was a strong linear predictor of SBP (2.1 mm Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, P<0.001). Similarly, the standard-based method predicted dichotomized blood pressure control, as measured by SBP <140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.30; P<0.001).Conclusions: Our results suggest that standard-based method is the preferred measure of treatment intensity for hypertension care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: African Americans have higher rates of hypertension and worse blood pressure (BP) control than Whites, and poorer medication adherence may contribute to this phenomenon. We explored associations among patients' race, self-reported experiences with clinicians, attitudes and beliefs about hypertension, and ultimately, medication adherence, among a sample with no racial disparities in BP control, to determine what lessons we could learn from patients and providers in this setting. METHODS: We recruited 793 White and African-American (58%) patients previously diagnosed with hypertension from 3 VA medical centers to participate in survey assessments of each of the above dimensions, subsequent to a primary care clinic visit. RESULTS: African-American patients' providers were significantly more active in advising and counseling about hypertension care and medication adherence. African-American patients indicated greater knowledge or heightened awareness of the importance of controlling their BP, but there were no race differences on a summary adherence measure. In multivariate models modeling medication adherence, race was not significant, but having been told to split one's pills, believing one's BP continues to be high, and having one's provider discuss things to do to make it easier to take BP medications were each significantly associated with worse adherence, whereas having more confidence in one's ability to take BP medications as prescribed was associated with better adherence (all p's ⩽ .02). CONCLUSION: When both physicians and patients take BP management seriously, disparities in BP adherence and control may be reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We compared blood pressure (BP) control in a recent cohort of hypertensive military veterans with BP control in a previous cohort and examined whether hypertension treatment practices, as defined by the frequency of antihypertensive medication dosage increases, have changed over time. Methods: We abstracted 1999 outpatient chart data including visit type, BP measurements, comorbidities, and medication use for 981 randomly selected hypertensive veterans. We examined overall BP control and control in subgroups with diabetes mellitus and renal disease, and compared results with those of a sample of 800 veterans studied from 1990 to1995. We also compared the frequency of antihypertensive medication dosage increases in the 2 samples. Results: Mean BPs were significantly lower in 1999. The mean systolic drop was 3.1 mm Hg and reached 13.7 mm Hg for the subgroups with diabetes and renal disease. Even larger decreases were seen in mean diastolic BPs. In 1999, 57% of patients had BP measurements of 140/90 mm Hg or higher, vs 69% of patients in the 1990-1995 study (P<.001). In 1999, the BP control of patients with diabetes was similar to that of patients without diabetes, as 60% of the former had BP measurements of 140/90 mm Hg or higher. Patients with renal disease had better control than those without, however, as only 43% had BP measurements of 140/90 mm Hg or higher. When comparing samples, patients with diabetes, renal disease, or both had better BP control in 1999 than their counterparts in the 1990-1995 study (P<.003 in all cases). In 1999, more medical visits were associated with medication dosage increases than in the 1990-1995 study. Conclusions: Although overall BP control has improved, BP measurements still exceeded recommended levels in most patients. For patients with diabetes and renal disease BP was much better controlled in the more recent sample. However, BP control of patients with diabetes was similar to that of patients without diabetes, and not in agreement with the guideline-recommended tighter control. Thus, room for improvement remains, especially in this subgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE — Clinical trials have demonstrated the importance of tight blood pressure control among patients with diabetes. However, little is known regarding the management of hypertension in patients with coexisting diabetes. To examine this issue, we addressed 1) whether hypertensive patients with coexisting diabetes are achieving lower levels of blood pressure than patients without diabetes, 2) whether there are differences in the intensity of antihypertensive medication therapy provided to patients with and without diabetes, and 3) whether diabetes management affects decisions to increase antihypertensive medication therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — We abstracted medical records to collect detailed information on 2 years of care provided for 800 male veterans with hypertension. We compared patients with and without diabetes on intensity of therapy and blood pressure control. Intensity of therapy was described using a previously validated measure that captures the likelihood of an increase in antihypertensive medications. We also determined whether increases in antihypertensive medications were less likely at those visits in which the diabetes medications were being adjusted. RESULTS — Of the 274 hypertensive patients with diabetes, 73% had a blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg, compared with 66% in the 526 patients without diabetes (P = 0.04). Diabetic patients also received significantly (P = 0.05) less intensive antihypertensive medication therapy than patients without diabetes. Less intensive therapy in diabetic patients could not be explained by clinicians being distracted by the treatment for diabetes, CONCLUSIONS — There is an urgent need to improve hypertension care and blood pressure control in patients with diabetes. Additional information is required to understand why clinicians are not more aggressive in managing blood pressure when patients also have diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care physicians may not be aggressive enough with the management of hypertension. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to primary care physicians' willingness to increase the intensity of treatment among patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Methods: Descriptive survey study. We sampled patient visits in a large midwestern health system to identify patients with uncontrolled hypertension. The treating primary care physicians were asked to complete a survey about the patient visit with a copy of the office notes attached to the survey (patient visits, n = 270; response rate, 86%). Results: Pharmacologic therapy was initiated or changed at only 38% of visits, despite documented hypertension for at least 6 months before the patients' most recent visit. The most frequently cited reason for no initiation or change in therapy was related to the primary care physicians being satisfied with the blood pressure (BP) value (satisfactory BP response, 30%; satisfactory diastolic BP response, 16%; only borderline hypertension, 10%). At 93% of these visits, systolic BP values were 140 mm Hg or higher, which is above the cut point recommended by Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure guidelines, and 35% were 150 mm Hg or higher. On average, physicians reported that 150 mm Hg was the lowest systolic BP at which they would recommend pharmacologic treatment to patients, compared with 91 mm Hg for diastolic BP. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that an important reason why physicians do not treat hypertension more aggressively is that they are willing to accept an elevated systolic BP in their patients. This has an important impact on public health because of the positive association between systolic BP and cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Sexual function, an important component of quality of life, is gaining increased research and clinical attention in older women with hypertension. Aim To assess the association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and other variables, and sexual activity and sexual dysfunction in hypertensive women. Methods Baseline analysis of 635 women participants of a larger randomized clinical trial of 9361 men and women. Main Outcome Measures Self-reported sexual activity (yes/no), and sexual function using the Female Sexual Function Inventory (FSFI). Results 452 participants (71.2%) reported having no sexual activity during the previous 4 weeks. The mean (SD) FSFI score for sexually active participants was 25.3 (6.0), and 52.6% of the sample reported a FSFI score ≤26.55 designating sexual dysfunction. In logistic regression models, SBP was not significantly associated with sexual activity (AOR = 1.002; P > .05). Older age (AOR = 0.95, P < .05), and lower education (AOR for < high school vs college degree = 0.29, P < .05) were associated with lower odds of being sexually active, as was living alone versus living with others (AOR = 0.56, P < .05). Higher weekly alcohol consumption was associated with increased odds of being sexually active (AOR = 1.39; P < .05). In logistic regression models among sexually active participants, SBP was not associated with sexual dysfunction (AOR = 1.01; P > .05). Higher depressive symptoms from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was associated with higher odds of sexual dysfunction (AOR = 1.24, P < .05), as was increased number of physical comorbidities (AOR = 1.25, P < .05). Diuretic use was associated with lower odds of being sexually active in participants with chronic kidney disease (AOR = 0.33, P < .05). Conclusion Younger age, higher education, living with others, and higher weekly alcohol consumption were significantly associated with higher odds of being sexually active in a sample of middle-aged and older women with hypertension. Increased depressive symptoms and increased physical comorbidities were significantly associated with increased odds of sexual dysfunction. SBP was not significantly associated with sexual activity or sexual dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A reply by the author is presented in response to letters to the editor on the article "Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population," seen in the December 31, 1998 issue.

Objectives Hypertension remains a prevalent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and improved medication adherence leads to better blood pressure (BP) control. We sought to improve medication adherence and hypertension outcomes among patients with uncontrolled BP through communication skills training targeting providers. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of a communication skills intervention for primary care doctors compared to usual care controls, on the outcomes of BP (systolic, diastolic), patient self-reported medication adherence, and provider counseling, assessed at baseline and post-intervention. We enrolled 379 patients with uncontrolled BP; 203 (54%) with follow-up data comprised our final sample. We performed random effects least squares regression analyses to examine whether the provider training improved outcomes, using clinics as the unit of randomization. Results In neither unadjusted nor multivariate analyses were significant differences in change detected from baseline to follow-up in provider counseling, medication adherence or BP, for the intervention versus control groups. Conclusion The intervention did not improve the outcomes; it may have been too brief and lacked sufficient practice level changes to impact counseling, adherence or BP. Practice Implications Future intervention efforts may require more extensive provider training, along with broader systematic changes, to improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In high-risk adults, intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) goals (<120 mmHg) reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and mortality, when compared to standard SBP goals (<140 mmHg), in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). While average benefit of reduced CVD risk with intensive SBP goals outweighs the average risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) and treatment costs, net intensive SBP goal benefits may vary by baseline SBP. We hypothesized that intensive SBP goals would be cost-effective vs. standard SBP goals when stratified by baseline SBP level in SPRINT-eligible US adults from the payer's perspective. Methods: Using CVD event, death, and SAE risks, a microsimulation model compared direct healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the SPRINT intensive and standard SBP goal arms over patients' remaining lifetimes. Published literature and national estimates were used for model parameters. The model assumed that, after the planned duration of SPRINT, adherence to treatment goals decayed over time. To estimate the effect of baseline SBP on the cost-effectiveness of intensive SBP goals, baseline SBP was stratified into the following groups: 130-139 mmHg, 140-149 mmHg, 150-159 mmHg, 160-169 mmHg, and 170-180 mmHg. Results: With higher baseline SBP, patients in both arms experienced higher rates of CVD events or CVD deaths and accrued higher costs compared with patients starting with lower baseline SBP. However, with higher baseline SBP, there were slightly more incremental QALYs gained with intensive SBP treatment, from 0.29 to 0.31. This led to a modestly better incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for intensive vs. standard SBP goals, decreasing from approximately $50,000 to $43,000 per QALY gained as baseline SBP increased. If SPRINT treatment effects and in-trial adherence persisted for the remaining lifetime, the ICER for intensive SBP goals decreased to approximately $25,000-$26,000 per QALY gained across baseline SBP groups. Conclusions: Treatment of all SPRINT-eligible patients led to lifetime cost-effectiveness below accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds and lifetime net benefit and cost-effectiveness varied only modestly by baseline SBP. However, this analysis was based on summary data and did not account for individual patient risks. Multiple predictors, in addition to baseline SBP, may be needed to identify which SPRINT-eligible patients derive maximal benefit from intensive SBP treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]