Search

Importance: Practical health promotion strategies for improving cardiometabolic health in older adults are needed., Objective: To examine the efficacy of a sedentary behavior reduction intervention for reducing sitting time and improving blood pressure in older adults., Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 60 to 89 years with high sitting time and body mass index of 30 to 50 from January 1, 2019, to November 31, 2022, at a health care system in Washington State., Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the sitting reduction intervention or a healthy living attention control condition for 6 months. Intervention participants received 10 health coaching contacts, sitting reduction goals, and a standing desk and fitness tracker to prompt sitting breaks. The attention control group received 10 health coaching contacts to set general healthy living goals, excluding physical activity or sedentary behavior., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, was sitting time assessed using accelerometers worn for 7 days at each time point. Coprimary outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured at baseline and 6 months., Results: A total of 283 participants (140 intervention and 143 control) were randomized (baseline mean [SD] age, 68.8 [6.2] years; 186 [65.7%] female; mean [SD] body mass index, 34.9 [4.7]). At baseline, 147 (51.9%) had a hypertension diagnosis and 97 (69.3%) took at least 1 antihypertensive medication. Sitting time was reduced, favoring the intervention arm, with a difference in the mean change of -31.44 min/d at 3 months (95% CI, -48.69 to -14.19 min/d; P < .001) and -31.85 min/d at 6 months (95% CI, -52.91 to -10.79 min/d; P = .003). Systolic blood pressure change was lower by 3.48 mm Hg, favoring the intervention arm at 6 months (95% CI, -6.68 to -0.28 mm Hg; P = .03). There were 6 serious adverse events in each arm and none were study related., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of a 6-month sitting reduction intervention, older adults in the intervention reduced sedentary time by more than 30 min/d and reduced systolic blood pressure. Sitting reduction could be a promising approach to improve health in older adults., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739762.

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation., Objective: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement., Design: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants., Participants: Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit., Measures: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed., Key Results: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM., Conclusions: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis., Objective: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension., Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic., Interventions: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks., Main Measures: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes., Key Results: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively., Limitations: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation., Conclusions: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3-5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension., Methods: We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18-85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM)., Results: We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended - unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [-0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [-0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 - 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic -0.45 mm Hg [-1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [-1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic -3.6 and diastolic -2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively., Conclusions: The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension., (© The Author(s) 2022. 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 US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BPs) before making a new diagnosis of hypertension, using 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM), however this is not common in routine clinical practice. Blood Pressure Checks and Diagnosing Hypertension (BP-CHECK) is a randomized controlled diagnostic study assessing the comparability and acceptability of clinic, home, and kiosk-based BP monitoring to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Stakeholders including patients, providers, policy makers, and researchers informed the study design and protocols., Methods: Adults aged 18-85 without diagnosed hypertension and on no hypertension medication with elevated BPs in clinic and at the baseline research visit are randomized to one of 3 regimens for diagnosing hypertension: (1) clinic BPs, (2) home BPs, or (3) kiosk BPs; all participants subsequently complete ABPM. The primary outcomes are the comparability (with daytime ABPM mean systolic and diastolic BP as the reference standard) and acceptability (e.g., adherence to, patient-reported outcomes) of each method compared to ABPM. Longer-term outcomes are assessed at 6-months including: patient-reported outcomes, primary care providers' diagnosis of hypertension; and BP control. We report challenges experienced and our response to these., Results: Enrollment began in May of 2017 with a target of randomizing 510 participants. BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the US changed after the trial started. We discuss the stakeholder process used to assess and respond to these changes., Conclusion and Public Health Impact: BP-CHECK will inform which hypertension diagnostic methods are most accurate, acceptable, and feasible to implement in primary care., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pharmacist- or nurse-led team care decreases patient blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk., Purpose: To evaluate whether a Web-based dietitian-led (WD) team care intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased BP, CVD risk, and weight compared to usual care (UC)., Methods: Electronic health record (EHR) data identified patients aged 30-69 years with BMI >26, elevated BP, and 10%-25% 10-year Framingham CVD risk who were registered patient website users. Patients with uncontrolled BP at screening were randomized to UC or WD, which included a home BP monitor, scale, and dietitian team care. WD participants had a single in-person dietitian visit to obtain baseline information and create a plan to reduce CVD risk. Planned follow-up occurred via secure messaging to report BP, weight, and fruit and vegetable intake and receive ongoing feedback. If needed, dietitians encouraged patients and their physicians to intensify antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications. Primary outcomes were change in systolic BP and weight loss ≥4 kg at 6 months. Feasibility outcomes included intervention utilization and satisfaction., Results: Between 2010 and 2011, a total of 90 of 101 participants completed 6-month follow-ups. The WD group had higher rates of secure messaging utilization and patient satisfaction. The WD group lost significantly more weight than the UC group (adjusted net difference=-3.2 kg, 95% CI=-5.0, -1.5, p<0.001) and was more likely to lose ≥4 kg (adjusted relative risk [RRadj]=2.96, 95% CI=1.16, 7.53). BP control and CVD risk reduction were greater in WD than UC, but differences were not statistically significant., Conclusions: WD intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased weight, BP, and CVD risk. A larger trial is justified., Trial Registration Number: Trial Registration Number: NCT01077388., (Copyright © 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Web-based collaborative approaches to managing chronic illness show promise for both improving health outcomes and increasing the efficiency of the healthcare system., Objective: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring to Improve Blood Pressure Control (e-BP) study, a randomized controlled trial that used a patient-shared electronic medical record, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and web-based pharmacist care to improve BP control (<140/90 mm Hg)., Study Design: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from a health plan perspective., Methods: Cost-effectiveness of home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care estimated for percent change in patients with controlled BP and cost per mm Hg in diastolic and systolic BP relative to usual care and home BP monitoring alone., Results: A 1% improvement in number of patients with controlled BP using home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care-the e-BP program-costs $16.65 (95% confidence interval: 15.37- 17.94) relative to home BP monitoring and web training alone. Each mm HG reduction in systolic and diastolic BP achieved through the e-BP program costs $65.29 (59.91-70.67) relativeto home BP monitoring and web tools only. Life expectancy was increased at an incremental cost of $1850 (1635-2064) and $2220 (1745-2694) per year of life saved for men and women, respectively., Conclusions: Web-based collaborative care can be used to achieve BP control at a relatively low cost. Future research should examine the cost impact of potential long-term clinical improvements.

Background: Patient-shared electronic health records provide opportunities for care outside of office visits. However, those who might benefit may be unable to or choose not to use these resources, while others might not need them., Objective: Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring (e-BP) was a randomized trial that demonstrated that Web-based pharmacist care led to improved blood pressure (BP) control. During recruitment we attempted to contact all patients with hypertension from 10 clinics to determine whether they were eligible and willing to participate. We wanted to know whether particular subgroups, particularly those from vulnerable populations, were less willing to participate or unable to because they lacked computer access., Methods: From 2005 to 2006, we sent invitation letters to and attempted to recruit 9298 patients with hypertension. Eligibility to participate in the trial included access to a computer and the Internet, an email address, and uncontrolled BP (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg). Generalized linear models within a modified Poisson regression framework were used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of ineligibility due to lack of computer access and of having uncontrolled BP., Results: We were able to contact 95.1% (8840/9298) of patients. Those refusing participation (3032/8840, 34.3%) were significantly more likely (P < .05) to be female, be nonwhite, have lower levels of education, and have Medicaid insurance. Among patients who answered survey questions, 22.8% (1673/7354) did not have computer access. Older age, minority race, and lower levels of education were risk factors for lack of computer access, with education as the strongest predictor (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.30-3.01 for those with a high school degree compared to a college education). Among hypertensive patients with computer access who were willing to participate, African American race (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.40), male sex (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18-1.38), and obesity (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.31-1.79) were risk factors for uncontrolled BP., Conclusion: Older age, lower socioeconomic status, and lower levels of education were associated with decreased access to and willingness to participate in a Web-based intervention to improve hypertension control. Failure to ameliorate this may worsen health care disparities., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00158639; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00158639 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5v1jnHaeo).

Context: Treating hypertension decreases mortality and disability from cardiovascular disease, but most hypertension remains inadequately controlled., Objective: To determine if a new model of care that uses patient Web services, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and pharmacist-assisted care improves BP control., Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-group randomized controlled trial, the Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring study was based on the Chronic Care Model. The trial was conducted at an integrated group practice in Washington state, enrolling 778 participants aged 25 to 75 years with uncontrolled essential hypertension and Internet access. Care was delivered over a secure patient Web site from June 2005 to December 2007., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, home BP monitoring and secure patient Web site training only, or home BP monitoring and secure patient Web site training plus pharmacist care management delivered through Web communications., Main Outcome Measures: Percentage of patients with controlled BP (<140/90 mm Hg) and changes in systolic and diastolic BP at 12 months., Results: Of 778 patients, 730 (94%) completed the 1-year follow-up visit. Patients assigned to the home BP monitoring and Web training only group had a nonsignificant increase in the percentage of patients with controlled BP (<140/90 mm Hg) compared with usual care (36% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 30%-42%] vs 31% [95% CI, 25%-37%]; P = .21). Adding Web-based pharmacist care to home BP monitoring and Web training significantly increased the percentage of patients with controlled BP (56%; 95% CI, 49%-62%) compared with usual care (P < .001) and home BP monitoring and Web training only (P < .001). Systolic BP was decreased stepwise from usual care to home BP monitoring and Web training only to home BP monitoring and Web training plus pharmacist care. Diastolic BP was decreased only in the pharmacist care group compared with both the usual care and home BP monitoring and Web training only groups. Compared with usual care, the patients who had baseline systolic BP of 160 mm Hg or higher and received home BP monitoring and Web training plus pharmacist care had a greater net reduction in systolic BP (-13.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -19.2 to -7.1]; P < .001) and diastolic BP (-4.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.0 to -1.2]; P < .001), and improved BP control (relative risk, 3.32 [95% CI, 1.86 to 5.94]; P<.001)., Conclusion: Pharmacist care management delivered through secure patient Web communications improved BP control in patients with hypertension. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00158639.

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation. Objective: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement. Design: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants. Participants: Adults (18–85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit. Measures: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1–7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed. Key Results: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM. Conclusions: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis. Objective: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18–85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic. Interventions: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks. Main Measures: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes. Key Results: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (−4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval −7.3, −2.2]; P<.001); home (−0.1mmHg [−1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (−7.2mmHg [−8.8, −5.5]; P<.001); home (−0.4mmHg [−1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively. Limitations: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation. Conclusions: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]