Search

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures The meta-analysis was not prospectively registered.

Background: Independent associations between cardiovascular risk factor exposures during midlife and later life development of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) versus reduced EF (HFrEF) have not been previously studied., Methods: We pooled data from 4 US cohort studies (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities, Cardiovascular Health, Health , Aging and Body Composition, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) and imputed annual risk factor trajectories for body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and glucose starting from age 40 years. Time-weighted average exposures to each risk factor during midlife and later life were calculated and analyzed for associations with the development of HFpEF or HFrEF., Results: A total of 23,861 participants were included (mean age at first in-person visit, 61.8 ±1 0.2 years; 56.6% female). During a median follow-up of 12 years, there were 3666 incident HF events, of which 51% had EF measured, including 934 with HFpEF and 739 with HFrEF. A high midlife systolic blood pressure and low midlife high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were associated with HFrEF, and a high midlife body mass index, systolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and glucose were associated with HFpEF. After adjusting for later life exposures, only midlife pulse pressure remained independently associated with HFpEF., Conclusions: Midlife exposure to cardiovascular risk factors are differentially associated with HFrEF and HFpEF later in life. Having a higher pulse pressure during midlife is associated with a greater risk for HFpEF but not HFrEF, independent of later life exposures., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Recent studies have suggested that prediabetes is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) only among individuals with concomitant hypertension., Research Design and Methods: We analyzed the association between prediabetes and CVD by hypertension status among 3,313 black adults in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) without diabetes or a history of CVD at baseline (2000-2004). Prediabetes was defined as fasting plasma glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL or hemoglobin A 1c between 5.7 and 6.4% (39 and 46 mmol/mol). Hypertension was defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg and/or self-reported antihypertensive medication use. Participants were followed for incident CVD events and all-cause mortality through 31 December 2014., Results: Overall, 35% of JHS participants did not have prediabetes or hypertension, 18% had prediabetes alone, 22% had hypertension alone, and 25% had both prediabetes and hypertension. Compared with participants without either condition, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for CVD events among participants with prediabetes alone, hypertension alone, and both prediabetes and hypertension were 0.86 (95% CI 0.51, 1.45), 2.09 (1.39, 3.14), and 1.93 (1.28, 2.90), respectively. Among participants with and without hypertension, there was no association between prediabetes and an increased risk for CVD (0.78 [0.46, 1.34] and 0.94 [0.70, 1.26], respectively). No association was present between prediabetes and all-cause mortality among participants with or without hypertension., Conclusions: Regardless of hypertension status, prediabetes was not associated with an increased risk for CVD or all-cause mortality in this cohort of black adults., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)