Search

Importance: Rural Black participants need effective intervention to achieve better blood pressure (BP) control., Objective: Among Black rural adults with persistently uncontrolled hypertension attending primary care clinics, to determine whether peer coaching (PC), practice facilitation (PF), or both (PCPF) are superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) in improving BP control., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in 69 rural primary care practices across Alabama and North Carolina between September 23, 2016, and September 26, 2019. The participating practices were randomized to 4 groups: PC plus EUC, PF plus EUC, PCPF plus EUC, and EUC alone. The baseline EUC approach included a laptop for each participating practice with hyperlinks to participant education on hypertension, a binder of practice tips, a poster showing an algorithm for stepped care to improve BP, and 25 home BP monitors. The trial was stopped on February 28, 2021, after final data collection. The study included Black participants with persistently uncontrolled hypertension. Data were analyzed from February 28, 2021, to December 13, 2022., Interventions: Practice facilitators helped practices implement at least 4 quality improvement projects designed to improve BP control throughout 1 year. Peer coaches delivered a structured program via telephone on hypertension self-management throughout 1 year., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each trial group with BP values of less than 140/90 mm Hg at 6 months and 12 months. The secondary outcome was a change in the systolic BP of participants at 6 months and 12 months., Results: A total of 69 practices were randomized, and 1209 participants' data were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of participants was 58 (12) years, and 748 (62%) were women. In the intention-to-treat analyses, neither intervention alone nor in combination improved BP control or BP levels more than EUC (at 12 months, PF vs EUC odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.58-1.52]; PC vs EUC OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.83-2.04]; PCPF vs EUC OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.64]). In preplanned subgroup analyses, participants younger than 60 years in the PC and PCPF groups experienced a significant 5 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP than participants younger than 60 years in the EUC group at 12 months. Practicewide BP control estimates in PF groups suggested that BP control improved from 54% to 61%, a finding that was not observed in the trial's participants., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that neither PC nor PF demonstrated a superior improvement in overall BP control compared with EUC. However, PC led to a significant reduction in systolic BP among younger adults., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02866669.

Background: Impoverished African Americans (AA) with hypertension face poor health outcomes., Purpose: To conduct a cluster-randomized trial testing two interventions, alone and in combination, to improve blood pressure (BP) control in AA with persistently uncontrolled hypertension., Methods: We engaged primary care practices serving rural Alabama and North Carolina residents, and in each practice we recruited approximately 25 AA adults with persistently uncontrolled hypertension (mean systolic BP >140 mmHg over the year prior to enrollment plus enrollment day BP assessed by research assistants ≥140/90 mmHg). Practices were randomized to peer coaching (PC), practice facilitation (PF), both PC and PF (PC + PF), or enhanced usual care (EUC). Coaches met with participants from PC and PC + PF practices weekly for 8 weeks then monthly over one year, discussing lifestyle changes, medication adherence, home monitoring, and communication with the healthcare team. Facilitators met with PF and PC + PF practices monthly to implement ≥1 quality improvement intervention in each of four domains. Data were collected at 0, 6, and 12 months., Results: We recruited 69 practices and 1596 participants; 18 practices (408 participants) were randomized to EUC, 16 (384 participants) to PF, 19 (424 participants) to PC, and 16 (380 participants) to PC + PF. Participants had mean age 57 years, 61% were women, and 56% reported annual income <$20,000., Limitations: The PF intervention acts at the practice level, possibly missing intervention effects in trial participants. Neither PC nor PF currently has established clinical reimbursement mechanisms., Conclusions: This trial will fill evidence gaps regarding practice-level vs. patient-level interventions for rural impoverished AA with uncontrolled hypertension., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Alyssa Adams - None. Muna Anabtawi, DDS – None. Lynn Andreae, PhD – None. Elizabeth Baquero, EDD – chair of education advisory board of MedExplain, Inc., a company commercializing a patient education platform based on the Patient Activated Learning System (palsforhealth.com). Joanna Bryan, MS – None. Andrea Cherrington, MD, MPH – None. Debra Clark, MPH – None. Doyle Cummings, PharmD – None. Jacqueline Halladay, MD, MPH - None. James Hollenberg, MD – None. Ethel Johnson – None. Suzanne Oparil – research funding from CinCor Pharma Inc. (site PI for a primary aldosterone study), George Clinical Pty (site PI for GMRx2 treatment of hypertension), and Higi (site PI for a blood pressure validation study); advisory roles for CinCor Pharma Inc. (Scientific Advisory Board for primary aldosteronism and hypertension) and Preventric Diagnostics, LLC (Chair of the Medical and Technology Committee, 2019–2022); and Editor-in-Chief of Current Hypertension Reports (Springer Science Business Media LLC) until 12/2023. Erica Richman, PhD - None. Joshua Richman, PhD, MD – None. Monika Safford, MD – owner of MedExplain, Inc., a company commercializing a patient education platform based on the Patient Activated Learning System (palsforhealth.com). James Shikany, Dr.P·H - None. Orysya Soroka, PhD – None. James Tillman – None., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: High rates of hypertension and poverty in the rural south contribute to health disparities with Black adults experiencing higher rates of cardiovascular disease than White adults, underscoring the need to identify prevention strategies., Methods: The equity in prevention and progression of hypertension by addressing barriers to nutrition and physical activity (EPIPHANY) study is a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a multilevel intervention to reduce barriers to a healthy lifestyle to lower blood pressure (BP) among rural, Black adults. Health education fairs offered to 20 churches in the Alabama Black Belt are being used to screen and enroll adults with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 120-139 mmHg and diastolic BP < 90 mmHg) who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication, according to the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline. Participants (n = 240) in churches randomized to the control condition are offered access to online resources including cooking and exercise classes. Participants (n = 240) in churches randomized to the intervention are receiving access to online resources; telephone-based peer support for lifestyle modification; funding for churches to develop programs to address food access and/or barriers to physical activity; and training of church members to serve as church champions to deliver training for church members on lifestyle modification. We will employ a Type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness design to assess effectiveness and implementation., Conclusions: The EPIPHANY study is designed to prevent hypertension among rural, Black adults by addressing structural and individual barriers to lifestyle modification through peer support., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The American Heart Association funded a Health Equity Research Network on the prevention of hypertension, the RESTORE Network, as part of its commitment to achieving health equity in all communities. This article provides an overview of the RESTORE Network., Methods: The RESTORE Network includes five independent, randomized trials testing approaches to implement non-pharmacological interventions that have been proven to lower blood pressure (BP). The trials are community-based, taking place in churches in rural Alabama, mobile health units in Michigan, barbershops in New York, community health centers in Maryland, and food deserts in Massachusetts. Each trial employs a hybrid effectiveness-implementation research design to test scalable and sustainable strategies that mitigate social determinants of health (SDOH) that contribute to hypertension in Black communities. The primary outcome in each trial is change in systolic BP. The RESTORE Network Coordinating Center has five cores: BP measurement, statistics, intervention, community engagement, and training that support the trials. Standardized protocols, data elements and analysis plans were adopted in each trial to facilitate cross-trial comparisons of the implementation strategies, and application of a standard costing instrument for health economic evaluations, scale up, and policy analysis. Herein, we discuss future RESTORE Network research plans and policy outreach activities designed to advance health equity by preventing hypertension., Conclusions: The RESTORE Network was designed to promote health equity in the US by testing effective and sustainable implementation strategies focused on addressing SDOH to prevent hypertension among Black adults., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To describe the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in a racially diverse sample from the US Southeast and examine the association of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor use with COVID-19 outcome., Design, Setting, Participants: This study is a retrospective cohort of 1024 patients with reverse-transcriptase PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection, admitted to a 1242-bed teaching hospital in Alabama. Data on RAAS inhibitors use, demographics and comorbidities were extracted from hospital medical records., Primary Outcomes: In-hospital mortality, a need of intensive care unit, respiratory failure, defined as invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and 90-day same-hospital readmissions., Results: Among 1024 patients (mean (SD) age, 57 (18.8) years), 532 (52.0%) were African Americans, 514 (50.2%) male, 493 (48.1%) had hypertension, 365 (36%) were taking RAAS inhibitors. During index hospitalisation (median length of stay of 7 (IQR (4-15) days) 137 (13.4%) patients died; 170 (19.2%) of survivors were readmitted. RAAS inhibitor use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 95% CI (0.56, (0.36 to 0.88), p=0.01) and no effect modification by race was observed (p for interaction=0.81). Among patients with hypertension, baseline RAAS use was associated with reduced risk of iMV, adjusted OR, 95% CI (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.95, p=0.03). Patients with heart failure were twice as likely to die from COVID-19, compared with patients without heart failure., Conclusions: In a retrospespective study of racially diverse patients, hospitalised with COVID-19, prehospitalisation use of RAAS inhibitors was associated with 40% reduction in mortality irrespective of race., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ALC reports serving as a consultant for Bayer. EAJ reports research funding from NIH, and Amgen; editorial board membership: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes; consulting: American College of Cardiology and McKesson; Expert witness for DeBlase Brown Everly.; and royalties for UpToDate. MMS reports research funding from Amgen. SO reports research funding from Bayer, CinCor Pharma, George Medicine and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Other authors report no conflict of interest, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Not having a healthcare visit in the past year has been associated with a higher likelihood of uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) among individuals with hypertension., Methods: We examined factors associated with not having a healthcare visit in the past year among US adults with hypertension using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2018 (n = 5,985). Hypertension was defined as systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ≥90 mm Hg, or antihypertensive medication use. Having a healthcare visit in the past year was self-reported., Results: Overall, 7.0% of US adults with hypertension reported not having a healthcare visit in the past year. Those without vs. with a healthcare visit in the past year were less likely to be aware they had hypertension (45.0% vs. 83.9%), to be taking antihypertensive medication (36.7% vs. 91.4%, among those who were aware they had hypertension), and to have controlled BP (SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg; 9.1% vs. 51.7%). After multivariable adjustment, not having a healthcare visit in the past year was more common among US adults without health insurance (prevalence ratio [PR]: 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-2.95), without a usual source of healthcare (PR: 5.65; 95% CI 4.16-7.67), who smoked cigarettes (PR: 1.34; 95% CI 1.02-1.77), and with heavy vs. no alcohol consumption (PR: 1.55; 95% CI 1.16-2.08). Also, not having a healthcare visit in the past year was more common among those without diabetes or a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and those not taking a statin., Conclusions: Interventions should be considered to ensure all adults with hypertension have annual healthcare visits., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2021. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Blood pressure measurement in clinical care settings seldom follows the protocol recommended by national guidelines, potentially leading to overestimates or underestimates of blood pressure control. We evaluated blood pressure measurement methods as a source of bias in determining blood pressure control among community-dwelling adults with diabetes., Methods: In a community-based trial of patients with diabetes, we measured both "clinical blood pressure" (clinical BP) (taken by a community nurse or medical assistant instructed to "take the participant's blood pressure like you do in your own clinic") and "research blood pressure" (research BP) (research staff followed a guideline-concordant protocol). Each participant had both types of blood pressure assessment on the same day over the course of 2 hours., Results: The 227 participants had a mean age of 59 years; 86% were black and 74% were women. The mean clinical BP was 5 mm Hg higher than the mean research BP for systolic blood pressure (P < .001) and 2 mm Hg higher for diastolic blood pressure (P < .001). The proportion of participants whose clinical BP was 130/80 mm Hg or higher was 8 percentage points higher than the proportion whose research BP was 130/80 mm Hg or higher (P < .001), and the proportion whose clinical BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher was 10 percentage points higher than the proportion whose research BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher (P < .001). Among those aged 65 years or older, the proportion whose clinical BP was 130/80 mm Hg or higher was 10 percentage points higher than proportion whose research BP was 130/80 mm Hg or higher, and the proportion whose clinical BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher was 14 percentage points higher than the proportion whose research BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher. Whites and smokers had the greatest risk for having a clinical BP 5 mm Hg or more higher than their research BP., Conclusion: Measurement biases in clinical settings may be a component of observed poor blood pressure control rates in real-world settings.