Search

Background: In 2011, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended the routine use of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring for the diagnosis of hypertension. These changes were predicted to reduce unnecessary treatment costs and workload associated with misdiagnosis., Aim: To assess the impact of guideline change on rates of hypertension-related consultation in general practice., Design and Setting: A retrospective open cohort study in adults registered with English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2017., Method: The primary outcome was the rate of face-to-face, telephone, and home visit consultations related to hypertension with a GP or nurse. Age- and sex-standardised rates were analysed using interrupted time-series analysis., Results: In 3 937 191 adults (median follow-up 4.2 years) there were 12 253 836 hypertension-related consultations. The rate of hypertension-related consultation was 71.0 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.8 to 74.2) in April 2006, which remained flat before 2011. The introduction of the NICE hypertension guideline in 2011 was associated with a change in yearly trend (change in trend -3.60 per 100 person-years, 95% CI = -5.12 to -2.09). The rate of consultation subsequently decreased to 59.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI = 56.5 to 61.8) in March 2017. These changes occurred around the time of diagnosis, and persisted when accounting for wider trends in all consultations., Conclusion: Hypertension-related workload has declined in the last decade, in association with guideline changes. This is due to changes in workload at the time of diagnosis, rather than reductions in misdiagnosis., (© The Authors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: CH is supported by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. Evidence Synthesis Working group (NIHR SPCR ESWG project 390). CH isalso supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, an NIHR senior investigator and editor-in-chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. JO is an NIH Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University. He is an associate editor at BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. KRM is supported by the NIHR School for Primary Care ResearchEvidence Synthesis Working group (NIHR SPCR ESWG project 390).

Background/objectives: Randomized controlled trials are used to inform clinical guidelines on the management of hypertension in older adults, but it is unclear to what extent these trials represent the general population attending routine clinical practice. This study aimed to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for hypertension trials conducted in older people., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: A total of 24 general practices in England., Participants: Anonymized electronic health record data from all individuals aged 80 and older., Measurements: Descriptive statistics were used to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for two previous medication intensification trials (HYVET, SPRINT) and one medication reduction trial (OPTiMISE). A logistic regression model was constructed to estimate predictors of eligibility for each trial., Results: Of 15,376 patients identified, 268 (1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.0%), 5,290 (34.4%; 95%CI = 33.7-35.2%), and 3,940 (25.6%; 95%CI = 24.9-26.3%) were eligible for the HYVET, SPRINT, and OPTiMISE trials, respectively. Between 5.6% and 30.7% of exclusions from each trial were due to eligibility criteria excluding those with high or uncontrolled blood pressure. Frailty (odds ratio [OR] = .44; 95%CI = .36-.54 [OPTiMISE]), cardiovascular polypharmacy (OR = .61; 95%CI = .55-.68 [SPRINT]) and multimorbidity (OR = .72; 95%CI = .64-.82 [SPRINT]) were associated with a lower likelihood of being eligible for one or more of the trials., Conclusion: A possible unintended consequence of blood pressure criteria used by trials attempting to answer different primary questions is that for many older patients, no trial evidence exists to inform treatment decisions in routine practice. Caution should be exercised when applying results from existing trials to patients with frailty or multimorbidity., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Geriatrics Society.)

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms., Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019., Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events., Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes., Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Background: Studies have shown that self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is effective when combined with co-interventions, but its efficacy varies in the presence of some co-morbidities. This study examined whether self-monitoring can reduce clinic BP in patients with hypertension-related co-morbidity., Methods: A systematic review was conducted of articles published in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials of self-monitoring of BP were selected and individual patient data (IPD) were requested. Contributing studies were prospectively categorized by whether they examined a low/high-intensity co-intervention. Change in BP and likelihood of uncontrolled BP at 12 months were examined according to number and type of hypertension-related co-morbidity in a one-stage IPD meta-analysis., Results: A total of 22 trials were eligible, 16 of which were able to provide IPD for the primary outcome, including 6,522 (89%) participants with follow-up data. Self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic BP compared to usual care at 12-month follow-up, regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities (-3.12 mm Hg, [95% confidence intervals -4.78, -1.46 mm Hg]; P value for interaction with number of morbidities = 0.260). Intense interventions were more effective than low-intensity interventions in patients with obesity (P < 0.001 for all outcomes), and possibly stroke (P < 0.004 for BP control outcome only), but this effect was not observed in patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease., Conclusions: Self-monitoring lowers BP regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities, but may only be effective in conditions such obesity or stroke when combined with high-intensity co-interventions., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

In recent years, national and international guidelines have recommended the use of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension. Despite evidence of cost-effectiveness, critics expressed concerns this would increase cardiovascular morbidity. We assessed the impact of these changes on the incidence of hypertension, out-of-office monitoring and cardiovascular morbidity using routine clinical data from English general practices, linked to inpatient hospital, mortality, and socio-economic status data. We studied 3 937 191 adults with median follow-up of 4.2 years (49% men, mean age=39.7 years) between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2017. Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine the impact of changes to English hypertension guidelines in 2011 on incidence of hypertension (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included rate of out-of-office monitoring and cardiovascular events. Across the study period, incidence of hypertension fell from 2.1 to 1.4 per 100 person-years. The change in guidance in 2011 was not associated with an immediate change in incidence (change in rate=0.01 [95% CI, -0.18-0.20]) but did result in a leveling out of the downward trend (change in yearly trend =0.09 [95% CI, 0.04-0.15]). Ambulatory monitoring increased significantly in 2011/2012 (change in rate =0.52 [95% CI, 0.43-0.60]). The rate of cardiovascular events remained unchanged (change in rate =-0.02 [95% CI, -0.05-0.02]). In summary, changes to hypertension guidelines in 2011 were associated with a stabilisation in incidence and no increase in cardiovascular events. Guidelines should continue to recommend out-of-office monitoring for diagnosis of hypertension.

Purpose: While animal and in vitro data demonstrate vasodilatory effects of egg white-derived peptides, human studies are lacking. We investigated for the first time the effects of an egg ovalbumin-derived protein hydrolysate on blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular risk., Methods: A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized crossover trial was implemented in 75 adults aged 50-70 years with systolic BP (130-≤ 150 mmHg). Participants were randomized to an egg ovalbumin-derived protein hydrolysate (3 g/day) or placebo (3 g/day). Participants completed two 6-week periods separated by a 3-week washout., Results: Data from 65 participants with a mean systolic BP (135.1 ± 11 mmHg) were included. Mean office and central BP and arterial stiffness (assessed by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) or pulse wave analysis (PWA)) did not change over time and no significant differences were observed between the egg protein hydrolysate and placebo groups (P > 0.05). Similarly, no significant effects of this egg ovalbumin-derived protein hydrolysate on blood lipid and glucose concentrations (P > 0.05) were observed., Conclusion: This is the first dietary intervention to investigate the effects of egg ovalbumin-derived protein hydrolysates on cardiovascular risk in humans. Despite promising findings from animal and in vitro studies, this RCT does not support the hypothesis that consumption of an egg ovalbumin-derived protein hydrolysate for 6 weeks in adults with a high-normal BP results in a reduction in BP or the modification of cardiovascular risk.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of using a blood pressure (BP) self-measurement kiosk-a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer combined with technology to integrate the BP readings into patient electronic medical records- to improve hypertension detection., Design: A concurrent mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating observational and qualitative interview components., Setting: Two English general practitioner (GP) surgeries., Participants: Adult patients registered at participating surgeries. Staff working at these sites., Interventions: BP self-measurement kiosks were placed in the waiting rooms for a 12-month period between 2015 and 2016 and compared with a 12-month control period prior to installation., Outcome Measures: (1) The number of patients using the kiosk and agreeing to transfer of their data into their electronic medical records; (2) the cost of using a kiosk compared with GP/practice nurse BP screening; (3) qualitative themes regarding use of the equipment., Results: Out of 15 624 eligible patients, only 186 (1.2%, 95% CI 1.0% to 1.4%) successfully used the kiosk to directly transfer a BP reading into their medical record. For a considerable portion of the intervention period, no readings were transferred, possibly indicating technical problems with the transfer link. A comparison of costs suggests that at least 52.6% of eligible patients would need to self-screen in order to bring costs below that of screening by GPs and practice nurses. Qualitative interviews confirmed that both patients and staff experienced technical difficulties, and used alternative methods to enter BP results into the medical record., Conclusions: While interviewees were generally positive about checking BP in the waiting room, the electronic transfer system as tested was neither robust, effective nor likely to be a cost-effective approach, thus may not be appropriate for a primary care environment. Since most of the cost of a kiosk system lies in the transfer mechanism, a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer and manual entry of results may be a suitable alternative., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SF, AT, M-ML, SJ, MM, SG, RH, AW, DM and RJM declare no competing interests. CH has received expenses and payments for media work. He has received expenses from WHO and holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, The Wellcome Trust and WHO. On occasion, he receives expenses for teaching EBM and is an NHS GP in the out of hours service in Oxford., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that larger blood pressure reductions and multiple antihypertensive drugs may be harmful in older people, particularly frail individuals with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support deprescribing of antihypertensives, which limits the practice of medication reduction in routine clinical care. The aim of this trial is to examine whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible in older patients without significant changes in blood pressure control at follow-up., Methods and Analysis: This trial will use a primary care-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial design. A total of 540 participants will be recruited, aged ≥80 years, with systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg and receiving ≥2 antihypertensive medications. Participants will have no compelling indication for medication continuation and will be considered to potentially benefit from medication reduction due to existing polypharmacy, comorbidity and frailty. Following a baseline appointment, individuals will be randomised to a strategy of medication reduction (intervention) with optional self-monitoring or usual care (control). Those in the intervention group will have one antihypertensive medication stopped. The primary outcome will be to determine if a reduction in medication can achieve a proportion of participants with clinically safe blood pressure levels at 12-week follow-up (defined as a systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg), which is non-inferior (within 10%) to that achieved by the usual care group. Qualitative interviews will be used to understand the barriers and facilitators to medication reduction. The study will use economic modelling to predict the long-term effects of any observed changes in blood pressure and quality of life., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol, informed consent form, participant information sheet and all other participant facing material have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central-Oxford A; ref 16/SC/0628), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (ref 21584/0371/001-0001), host institution(s) and Health Research Authority. All research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: EudraCT 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN97503221; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy result in substantial maternal morbidity and are a leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide. Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) might improve the detection and management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but few data are available, including regarding appropriate thresholds. This systematic review and individual patient data analysis aimed to assess the current evidence on differences between clinic and self-monitored BP through pregnancy. MEDLINE and 10 other electronic databases were searched for articles published up to and including July 2016 using a strategy designed to capture all the literature on self-monitoring of BP during pregnancy. Investigators of included studies were contacted requesting individual patient data: self-monitored and clinic BP and demographic data. Twenty-one studies that utilized self-monitoring of BP during pregnancy were identified. Individual patient data from self-monitored and clinic readings were available from 7 plus 1 unpublished articles (8 studies; n=758) and 2 further studies published summary data. Analysis revealed a mean self-monitoring clinic difference of ≤1.2 mm Hg systolic BP throughout pregnancy although there was significant heterogeneity (difference in means, I 2 >80% throughout pregnancy). Although the overall population difference was small, levels of white coat hypertension were high, particularly toward the end of pregnancy. The available literature includes no evidence of a systematic difference between self and clinic readings, suggesting that appropriate treatment and diagnostic thresholds for self-monitoring during pregnancy would be equivalent to standard clinic thresholds.

Background: Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care., Methods: This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366., Findings: 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups., Interpretation: Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care., Funding: National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Self-monitoring of hypertension is associated with lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, evidence for the use of self-monitoring to titrate antihypertensive medication by physicians is equivocal. Furthermore, there is some evidence for the efficacy of telemonitoring in the management of hypertension but it is not clear what this adds over and above self-monitoring. This trial aims to evaluate whether GP led antihypertensive titration using self-monitoring results in lower SBP compared to usual care and whether telemonitoring adds anything to self-monitoring alone., Methods/design: This will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-monitoring of BP with or without telemonitoring compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care, self-monitoring alone, or self-monitoring with telemonitoring. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in clinic SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP, gender, BP target and practice. At least 1110 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-monitoring with or without telemonitoring and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power with an adjusted alpha of 0.017 (2-sided) to adjust for all three pairwise comparisons. Other outcomes will include adherence of anti-hypertensive medication, lifestyle behaviours, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. An economic analysis will consider both within trial costs and a model extrapolating the results thereafter. A qualitative sub study will gain insights into the views, experiences and decision making processes of patients and health care professionals focusing on the acceptability of self-monitoring and telemonitoring in the routine management of hypertension., Discussion: The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-monitoring of BP in people with hypertension would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 83571366 . Registered 17 July 2014.

Background: Free blood pressure (BP) checks offered by community pharmacies provide a potentially useful opportunity to diagnose and/or manage hypertension, but the accuracy of the sphygmomanometers in use is currently unknown., Aim: To assess the accuracy of validated automatic BP monitors used for BP checks in a UK retail pharmacy chain., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional, observational study in 52 pharmacies from one chain in a range of locations (inner city, suburban, and rural) in central England., Method: Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device (Omron PA-350), at 50 mmHg intervals across the range 0-300 mmHg (static pressure test), with a difference from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any interval considered a failure. The results were analysed by usage rates and length of time in service., Results: Of 61 BP monitors tested, eight (13%) monitors failed (that is, were >3 mmHg from reference), all of which underestimated BP. Monitor failure rate from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any testing interval varied by length of time in use (2/38, 5% <18 months; 4/14, 29% >18 months, P = 0.038) and to some extent, but non-significantly, by usage rates (4/22, 18% in monitors used more than once daily; 2/33, 6% in those used less frequently, P = 0.204)., Conclusion: BP monitors within a pharmacy setting fail at similar rates to those in general practice. Annual calibration checks for blood pressure monitors are needed, even for new monitors, as these data indicate declining performance from 18 months onwards., (© British Journal of General Practice 2016.)

Background: Community-based self-screening may provide opportunities to increase detection of hypertension, and identify raised blood pressure (BP) in populations who do not access healthcare. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-physician screening and self-screening of BP in community settings., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to November 2013 to identify studies reporting community-based self-screening or non-physician screening for hypertension in adults. Results were stratified by study site, screener, and the cut-off used to define high screening BP., Results: We included 73 studies, which described screening in 9 settings, with pharmacies (22%) and public areas/retail (15%) most commonly described. We found high levels of heterogeneity in all analyses, despite stratification. The highest proportions of eligible participants screened were achieved by mobile units (range 21%-88%) and pharmacies (range 40%-90%). Self-screeners had similar median rates of high BP detection (25%-35%) to participants in studies using other screeners. Few (16%) studies reported referral to primary care after screening. However, where participants were referred, a median of 44% (range 17%-100%) received a new hypertension diagnosis or antihypertensive medication., Conclusions: Community-based non-physician or self-screening for raised BP can detect raised BP, which may lead to the identification of new cases of hypertension. However, current evidence is insufficient to recommend specific approaches or settings. Studies with good follow-up of patients to definitive diagnosis are needed., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Journal of Hypertension.)

Several dietary supplements are currently marketed for management of hypertension, but the evidence for effectiveness is conflicting. Our objective was to critically appraise and evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of chlorogenic acids (CGAs) on blood pressure, using data from published randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Electronic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Amed, Cinahl and The Cochrane Library. We also hand-searched the bibliographies of all retrieved articles. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies and extracted the data. The reporting quality of all included studies was assessed by the use of a quality assessment checklist adapted from the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials Statement. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Seven eligible studies were identified, and five including 364 participants were included. There were variations in the reporting quality of the included RCTs. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure in favour of CGA (mean difference (MD): -4.31 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.60 to -3.01; I(2)=65%; P<0.00001). Meta-analysis also showed a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure favouring CGA (MD: -3.68 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.91 to -3.45; I(2)=97%; P<0.00001). All studies reported no adverse events. In conclusion, the evidence from published RCTs suggests that CGA intake causes statistically significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressures. The size of the effect is moderate. Few clinical trials have been conducted; they vary in design and methodology and are confined to Asian populations and funded by CGA manufacturers. Large independent trials evaluating the effects of CGA on blood pressure are warranted.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Background: The diagnosis of hypertension has traditionally been based on blood-pressure measurements in the clinic, but home and ambulatory measurements better correlate with cardiovascular outcome, and ambulatory monitoring is more accurate than both clinic and home monitoring in diagnosing hypertension. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies for hypertension., Methods: We did a Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. We used a hypothetical primary-care population aged 40 years or older with a screening blood-pressure measurement greater than 140/90 mm Hg and risk-factor prevalence equivalent to the general population. We compared three diagnostic strategies-further blood pressure measurement in the clinic, at home, and with an ambulatory monitor-in terms of lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years, and cost-effectiveness., Findings: Ambulatory monitoring was the most cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of hypertension for men and women of all ages. It was cost-saving for all groups (from -£56 [95% CI -105 to -10] in men aged 75 years to -£323 [-389 to -222] in women aged 40 years) and resulted in more quality-adjusted life years for men and women older than 50 years (from 0·006 [0·000 to 0·015] for women aged 60 years to 0·022 [0·012 to 0·035] for men aged 70 years). This finding was robust when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case, but was sensitive if home monitoring was judged to have equal test performance to ambulatory monitoring or if treatment was judged effective irrespective of whether an individual was hypertensive., Interpretation: Ambulatory monitoring as a diagnostic strategy for hypertension after an initial raised reading in the clinic would reduce misdiagnosis and save costs. Additional costs from ambulatory monitoring are counterbalanced by cost savings from better targeted treatment. Ambulatory monitoring is recommended for most patients before the start of antihypertensive drugs., Funding: National Institute for Health Research and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies identified worrying levels of sphygmomanometer inaccuracy and have not been repeated in the era of digital measurement of blood pressure., Aim: To establish the type and accuracy of sphygmomanometers in current use., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional, observational study in 38 Oxfordshire primary care practices., Method: Sphygmomanometers were evaluated between 50 and 250 mmHg, using Omron PA350 or Scandmed 950831-2 pressure meters., Results: Six hundred and four sphygmomanometers were identified: 323 digital (53%), 192 aneroid (32%), 79 mercury (13%), and 10 hybrid (2%) devices. Of these, 584 (97%) could be fully tested. Overall, 503/584 (86%) were within 3 mmHg of the reference, 77/584 (13%) had one or more error of 4-9 mmHg, and 4/584 (<1%) had one or more error of more than 10 mmHg. Mercury (71/75, 95%) and digital (272/308, 88%) devices were more likely to be within 3 mmHg of the reference standard than aneroid models (150/191, 78%) (Fisher's exact test P = 0.001). Donated aneroid devices from the pharmaceutical industry performed significantly worse: 10/23 (43%) within 3 mmHg of standard compared to 140/168 (83%) aneroid models from recognised manufacturers (Fisher's exact test P<0.001). No significant difference was found in performance between manufacturers within each device type, for either aneroid (Fisher's exact test P = 0.96) or digital (Fisher's exact test P = 0.7) devices., Conclusion: Digital sphygmomanometers have largely replaced mercury models in primary care and have equivalent accuracy. Aneroid devices have higher failure rates than other device types; this appears to be largely accounted for by models from indiscernible manufacturers. Given the availability of inexpensive and accurate digital models, GPs could consider replacing aneroid devices with digital equivalents, especially for home visiting.

Objective: To determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension., Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment., Data Sources: Medline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension., Results: The 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%)., Conclusions: Neither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.

Background: Self-monitoring is increasingly recommended as a method of managing cardiovascular disease. However, the design, implementation and reproducibility of the self-monitoring interventions appear to vary considerably. We examined the interventions included in systematic reviews of self-monitoring for four clinical problems that increase cardiovascular disease risk., Methods: We searched Medline and Cochrane databases for systematic reviews of self-monitoring for: heart failure, oral anticoagulation therapy, hypertension and type 2 diabetes. We extracted data using a pre-specified template for the identifiable components of the interventions for each disease. Data was also extracted on the theoretical basis of the education provided, the rationale given for the self-monitoring regime adopted and the compliance with the self-monitoring regime by the patients., Results: From 52 randomized controlled trials (10,388 patients) we identified four main components in self-monitoring interventions: education, self-measurement, adjustment/adherence and contact with health professionals. Considerable variation in these components occurred across trials and conditions, and often components were poorly described. Few trials gave evidence-based rationales for the components included and self-measurement regimes adopted., Conclusions: The components of self-monitoring interventions are not well defined despite current guidelines for self-monitoring in cardiovascular disease management. Few trials gave evidence-based rationales for the components included and self-measurement regimes adopted. We propose a checklist of factors to be considered in the design of self-monitoring interventions which may aid in the provision of an evidence-based rationale for each component as well as increase the reproducibility of effective interventions for clinicians and researchers.

The aim of this study is to systematically examine the proportion of accurate readings attained by automatic digital blood pressure (BP) devices in published validation studies. We included studies of automatic digital BP devices using recognized protocols. We summarized the data as mean and s.d. of differences between measured and observed BP, and proportion of measurements within 5 mm Hg. We included 79 articles (10,783 participants) reporting 113 studies from 22 different countries. Overall, 25/31 (81%), 37/41 (90%) and 34/35 (97%) devices passed the relevant protocols [BHS, AAMI and ESH international protocol (ESH-IP), respectively]. For devices that passed the BHS protocol, the proportion of measured values within 5 mm Hg of the observed value ranged from 60 to 86% (AAMI protocol 47-94% and ESH-IP 54-89%). The results for the same device varied significantly when a different protocol was used (Omron HEM-907 80% of readings were within 5 mm Hg using the AAMI protocol compared with 62% with the ESH-IP). Even devices with a mean difference of zero show high variation: a device with 74% of BP measurements within 5 mm Hg would require six further BP measurements to reduce variation to 95% of readings within 5 mm Hg. Current protocols for validating BP monitors give no guarantee of accuracy in clinical practice. Devices may pass even the most rigorous protocol with as few as 60% of readings within 5 mm Hg of the observed value. Multiple readings are essential to provide clinicians and patients with accurate information on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions.

Background: GPs vary greatly in their clinical management of hypertension, for reasons that are poorly understood., Aim: To explore GPs' awareness of current hypertension guidelines and their self-reported implementation of them in clinical practice., Design of Study: Questionnaire survey via the internet., Setting: Primary care., Method: Survey of GPs (n = 401), based on the 'awareness-to-adherence' model of behavioural change., Results: While awareness of recommendations was high, agreement and adoption were often less so. Almost all practitioners (99%) were aware of the guidance on statin therapy but fewer than half (43%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 38-48%) adhered to the recommendation in practice. Three-quarters (77%) were aware that blood pressure should initially be measured in both arms, but only 30% agreed with the recommendation (95% CI = 26 to 34%), and 13% (95% CI = 10 to 16%) adhered to it. Although the adoption of a recommendation was usually consequent on agreement with it, 19% of GPs (95% CI = 15 to 23%) reported adherence to financially incentivised guidance on statin therapy without either being aware of it or in agreement with it. No significant association was found among age, sex, year of graduation, or post held and level of awareness, agreement, or adoption., Conclusion: The specific barrier and action needed to promote application of hypertension guidelines varies with each clinical action. Lack of awareness is seldom the problem. Most GPs are unlikely to implement elements of guidance they disagree with even if given financial incentives. High adherence requires a reflective workforce that can respond to the scientific evidence underpinning the guidance.