Search

Almost 1 in 5 US adults with hypertension has apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH). Identifying modifiable risk factors for incident aTRH may guide interventions to reduce the need for additional antihypertensive medication. We evaluated the association between cardiovascular health and incident aTRH among participants with hypertension and controlled blood pressure (BP) at baseline in the Jackson Heart Study (N=800) and the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study (N=2316). Body mass index, smoking, physical activity, diet, BP, cholesterol and glucose, categorized as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 were assessed at baseline and used to define cardiovascular health. Incident aTRH was defined by uncontrolled BP, systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg, while taking ≥3 classes of antihypertensive medication or controlled BP, systolic BP <130 mm Hg and diastolic BP <80 mm Hg, while taking ≥4 classes of antihypertensive medication at a follow-up visit. Over a median 9 years of follow-up, 605 (19.4%) participants developed aTRH. Incident aTRH developed among 25.8%, 18.2%, and 15.7% of participants with 0 to 1, 2, and 3 to 5 ideal Life's Simple 7 components, respectively. No participants had 6 or 7 ideal Life's Simple 7 components at baseline. The multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) for incident aTRH associated with 2 and 3 to 5 versus 0 to 1 ideal components were 0.75 (0.61-0.92) and 0.67 (0.54-0.82), respectively. These findings suggest optimizing cardiovascular health may reduce the pill burden and high cardiovascular risk associated with aTRH among individuals with hypertension.

Guidelines recommend using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements to confirm the diagnoses of hypertension and in the titration of antihypertensive medication. The prevalence of out-of-office BP phenotypes for an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <140/90 mm Hg has been reported. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes when targeting an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <120/80 is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory BP Ancillary study evaluated out-of-office BP using ambulatory BP monitoring in 897 participants 27 months after randomization to intensive versus standard BP targets (office systolic BP <120 versus <140 mm Hg). We used office and daytime BP to assess the proportion of participants with white-coat effect (standard target: office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP ≥120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP <120/80 mm Hg) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (standard target: office BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP <120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥120/80 mm Hg) in each treatment arm. The prevalence of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension was 9% and 34%, in both treatment groups. Among participants with uncontrolled office BP, white-coat effect was present in 20% and 23% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. Among participants with controlled office BP, masked uncontrolled hypertension was present in 62% and 56% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. In conclusion, a more intensive BP target resulted in a similar proportion of patients with white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension compared with a standard target.

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure (BP) Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines recommends ambulatory BP monitoring to detect masked hypertension. Data on the short-term reproducibility of masked hypertension are scarce. The IDH study (Improving the Detection of Hypertension) enrolled 408 adults not taking antihypertensive medication from 2011 to 2013. Office BP and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring were performed on 2 occasions, a median of 29 days apart. After excluding participants with office hypertension (mean systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg), the analytical sample included 254 participants. Using the κ statistic, we evaluated the reproducibility of masked awake hypertension (awake systolic/diastolic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg) defined by the 2017 BP guideline thresholds, as well as masked 24-hour (24-hour systolic/diastolic BP ≥125/75 mm Hg), masked asleep (asleep systolic/diastolic BP ≥110/65 mm Hg), and any masked hypertension (high awake, 24-hour, and asleep BP). The mean (SD) age of participants was 38.0 (12.3) years and 65.7% were female. Based on the first and second ambulatory BP recordings, 24.0% and 26.4% of participants, respectively, had masked awake hypertension. The κ statistic (95% CI) was 0.50 (0.38-0.62) for masked awake, 0.57 (0.46-0.69) for masked 24-hour, 0.57 (0.47-0.68) for masked asleep, and 0.58 (0.47-0.68) for any masked hypertension. Clinicians should consider the moderate short-term reproducibility of masked hypertension when interpreting the results from a single ambulatory BP recording.

Background: Team-based care (TBC), a team of ≥2 healthcare professionals working collaboratively toward a shared clinical goal, is a recommended strategy to manage blood pressure (BP). However, the most effective and cost-effective TBC strategy is unknown. Methods: A meta-analysis of clinical trials in US adults (aged ≥20 years) with uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg) was performed to estimate the systolic BP reduction for TBC strategies versus usual care at 12 months. TBC strategies were stratified by the inclusion of a nonphysician team member who could titrate antihypertensive medications. The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model was used to project the expected BP reductions out to 10 years and simulate cardiovascular disease events, direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years, and cost-effectiveness of TBC with physician and nonphysician titration. Results: Among 19 studies comprising 5993 participants, the 12-month systolic BP change versus usual care was −5.0 (95% CI, −7.9 to −2.2) mm Hg for TBC with physician titration and −10.5 (−16.2 to −4.8) mm Hg for TBC with nonphysician titration. Relative to usual care at 10 years, TBC with nonphysician titration was estimated to cost $95 (95% uncertainty interval, −$563 to $664) more per patient and gain 0.022 (0.003–0.042) quality-adjusted life years, costing $4400/quality-adjusted life year gained. TBC with physician titration was estimated to cost more and gain fewer quality-adjusted life years than TBC with nonphysician titration. Conclusions: TBC with nonphysician titration yields superior hypertension outcomes compared with other strategies and is a cost-effective way to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The PRedicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm accurately predicted out-of-office blood pressure (BP) among adults with suspected high BP in the United Kingdom and Canada. We tested the accuracy of PROOF-BP in a diverse US population and evaluated a newly developed US-specific algorithm (PROOF-BP-US). METHODS Adults with ≥2 office BP readings and ≥10 awake BP readings on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring from 4 pooled US studies were included. We compared mean awake BP with predicted out-of-office BP using PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US. Our primary outcomes were hypertensive out-of-office systolic BP (SBP) ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥80 mm Hg. RESULTS We included 3,058 adults, mean (SD) age was 52.0 (11.9) years, 38% were male, and 54% were Black. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curve (95% confidence interval) for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.81 (0.79–0.82) and DBP was 0.76 (0.74–0.78) for PROOF-BP. For PROOF-BP-US, the AUROC curve for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.82 (0.81–0.83) and for DBP was 0.81 (0.79–0.83). The optimal predicted out-of-office BP ranges for out-of-office BP measurement referral were 120–134/75–84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP and 125–134/75–84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP-US. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline (referral range 130–159/80–99 mm Hg) would refer 93.1% of adults not taking antihypertensive medications with office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for out-of-office BP measurement, compared with 53.1% using PROOF-BP and 46.8% using PROOF-BP-US. CONCLUSIONS PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US accurately predicted out-of-office hypertension in a diverse sample of US adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure (BP) guideline recommends ambulatory BP monitoring to exclude white coat hypertension (WCH) among adults with office systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) of 130–159/80–99 mm Hg, and masked hypertension (MHT) among adults with office SBP/DBP of 120–129/75–79 mm Hg after a 3-month trial of lifestyle modification. We estimated the proportion of individuals with ideal lifestyle factors among those who meet these office BP criteria. Methods We analyzed data from participants not taking antihypertensive medication in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) and Jackson Heart Study (JHS) who met the office BP criteria for screening for WCH (CARDIA n = 490, JHS n = 873) and MHT (CARDIA n = 486, JHS n = 614). We estimated the prevalence of lifestyle factors including ideal body mass index (BMI), physical activity, diet, and alcohol use among participants who met office BP criteria for WCH or MHT screening. Results Among participants who met office BP criteria for WCH screening, 15.5% in CARDIA and 3.6% in JHS had 3 or more ideal lifestyle factors. Among participants who met office BP criteria for MHT screening, 22.6% in CARDIA and 4.7% in JHS had 3 or more ideal lifestyle factors. Ideal BMI, diet, and physical activity were present in less than half of participants in each sample. Conclusions Few participants who met office BP criteria for the screening of WCH or MHT had ideal lifestyle factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In LABBPS (Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study), pharmacist-led hypertension care in Los Angeles County Black-owned barbershops significantly improved blood pressure control in non-Hispanic Black men with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline. In this analysis, 10-year health outcomes and health care costs of 1 year of the LABBPS intervention versus control are projected.Methods: A discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes projected blood pressure, medication-related adverse events, fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and noncardiovascular disease death in LABBPS participants. Program costs, total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for the LABBPS intervention and control arms from a health care sector perspective over a 10-year horizon. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. High and intermediate cost-effectiveness thresholds were defined as <$50 000 and <$150 000 per QALY gained, respectively.Results: At 10 years, the intervention was projected to cost an average of $2356 (95% uncertainty interval, -$264 to $4611) more per participant than the control arm and gain 0.06 (95% uncertainty interval, 0.01-0.10) QALYs. The LABBPS intervention was highly cost-effective, with a mean cost of $42 717 per QALY gained (58% probability of being highly and 96% of being at least intermediately cost-effective). Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162 per QALY gained. The LABBPS intervention would be only intermediately cost-effective if pharmacists were less likely to intensify antihypertensive medications when systolic blood pressure was ≥150 mm Hg or if pharmacist weekly time driving to barbershops increased.Conclusions: Hypertension care delivered by clinical pharmacists in Black barbershops is a highly cost-effective way to improve blood pressure control in Black men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]