Search

Introduction: Prehypertension is defined as blood pressure that is above the normal range but not high enough to be classed as hypertension. Prehypertension is a warning of development of hypertension as well as a risk for cardiovascular disease, heart attack and stroke. In the UK, non-pharmacological interventions are recommended for prehypertension management but no reviews have focused on the effectiveness of these types of interventions solely in people with prehypertension. Therefore, the proposed systematic review will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing or maintaining blood pressure in prehypertensive people., Methods and Analysis: This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The databases/trial registries that will be searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations include Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Scopus and the International HTA Database. Search terms have been identified by the team including an information specialist. Three reviewers will be involved in the study selection process. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list for economic evaluations. Findings from the included studies will be tabulated and synthesised narratively. Heterogeneity will be assessed through visual inspection of forest plots and the calculation of the χ 2 and I 2 statistics and causes of heterogeneity will be assessed where sufficient data are available. If possible, we plan to investigate differential effects on specific subgroups and from different types of interventions using meta-regression. Where relevant, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence found., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not needed. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated via the wider study website and shared with the study sites and participants., Registration Details: The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420232433047)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VB, CH, AC, JS and CW are partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Overweight and obesity are growing public health problems worldwide. Both diet and physical activity have been the primary interventions for weight reduction over the past decade. With increasing rates of overweight and obesity, it is evident that a primary focus on diet and exercise has not resulted in sustained obesity reduction within the global population. There is now a case to explore other weight management strategies, focusing on psychological factors that may underpin overweight and obesity. Psychological therapy interventions are gaining recognition for their effectiveness in addressing underlying emotional factors and promoting weight loss. However, there is a dearth of literature that has mapped the types of psychological interventions and the characteristics of these interventions as a means of achieving weight reduction and sustained weight reduction in adults with overweight or obesity., Methods and Analysis: The review will combine the methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A total of six databases will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy. Intervention studies will be included if participants are 18 years and over, classified as overweight or obese (body mass index ≥25 kg/m 2 ), and have received a psychological therapy intervention. The review will exclude studies that are not available in English, not full text, none peer reviewed or combine a lifestyle and/or pharmacological intervention with a psychological intervention. Data will be synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this scoping review. The findings will be disseminated through journal publication(s), social media and a lay summary for key stakeholders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Around 40% of adults have pre-hypertension (blood pressure between 120-139/80-89), meaning they are at increased risk of developing hypertension and other cardiovascular disease-related conditions. There are limited studies on the management of pre-hypertension; however, guidance recommends that it should be focused on lifestyle modification rather than on medication. Self-monitoring of blood pressure could allow people to monitor and manage their risk status and may allow individuals to modify lifestyle factors. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility and acceptability, to both healthcare professionals and people with pre-hypertension, of blood pressure self-monitoring., Methods and Analysis: A prospective, non-randomised feasibility study, with a mixed-methods approach will be employed. Eligible participants (n=114) will be recruited from general practices, pharmacies and community providers across Lancashire and South Cumbria. Participants will self-monitor their blood pressure at home for 6 months and will complete questionnaires at three timepoints (baseline, 6 and 12 months). Healthcare professionals and participants involved in the study will be invited to take part in follow-up interviews and a focus group. The primary outcomes include the willingness to engage with the concept of pre-hypertension, the acceptability of self-monitoring, and the study processes. Secondary outcomes will inform the design of a potential future trial. A cost-analysis and cost-benefit analysis will be conducted., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from London-Fulham NHS Research Ethics Committee, the University of Central Lancashire Health Ethics Review Panel and the HRA. The results of the study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, feedback to service users and healthcare professionals, and to professional bodies in primary care and pharmacy., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13649483., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NW is a GP principal in Plas Menai Health Centre, Llanfairfechan, LL33 0PE. He is the deputy chair of the NIHR HTA Programme funding committee (commissioned research) and the chief investigator of two NIHR HTA Programme funded trials. VB, AC and CW are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Purpose- Identifying the etiology of acute ischemic stroke is essential for effective secondary prevention. However, in at least one third of ischemic strokes, existing investigative protocols fail to determine the underlying cause. Establishing etiology is complicated by variation in clinical practice, often reflecting preferences of treating clinicians and variable availability of investigative techniques. In this review, we systematically assess the extent to which there exists consensus, disagreement, and gaps in clinical practice recommendations on etiologic workup in acute ischemic stroke. Methods- We identified clinical practice guidelines/consensus statements through searches of 4 electronic databases and hand-searching of websites/reference lists. Two reviewers independently assessed reports for eligibility. We extracted data on report characteristics and recommendations relating to etiologic workup in acute ischemic stroke and in cases of cryptogenic stroke. Quality was assessed using the AGREE II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Recommendations were synthesized according to a published algorithm for diagnostic evaluation in cryptogenic stroke. Results- We retrieved 16 clinical practice guidelines and 7 consensus statements addressing acute stroke management (n=12), atrial fibrillation (n=5), imaging (n=5), and secondary prevention (n=1). Five reports were of overall high quality. For all patients, guidelines recommended routine brain imaging, noninvasive vascular imaging, a 12-lead ECG, and routine blood tests/laboratory investigations. Additionally, ECG monitoring (>24 hours) was recommended for patients with suspected embolic stroke and echocardiography for patients with suspected cardiac source. Three reports recommended investigations for rarer causes of stroke. None of the reports provided guidance on the extent of investigation needed before classifying a stroke as cryptogenic. Conclusions- While consensus exists surrounding standard etiologic workup, there is little agreement on more advanced investigations for rarer causes of acute ischemic stroke. This gap in guidance, and in the underpinning evidence, demonstrates missed opportunities to better understand and protect against ongoing stroke risk. Registration- URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019127822.

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Identifying the aetiology of ischaemic stroke is essential in order to initiate appropriate and timely secondary prevention measures to reduce the risk of recurrence. For the majority of ischaemic strokes, the aetiology can be readily identified, but in at least 30% of cases, the exact aetiology cannot be determined using existing investigative protocols. Such strokes are classed as 'cryptogenic' or as a stroke of unknown origin. However, there exists substantial variation in clinical practice when investigating cases of seemingly cryptogenic stroke, often reflecting local service availability and the preferences of treating clinicians. This variation in practice is compounded by the lack of international consensus as to the optimum level and timing of investigations required following a stroke. To address this gap, we aim to systematically review and compare recommendations in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that relate to the assessment and investigation of the aetiology of ischaemic stroke, and any subsequent diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke., Method: We will search for CPGs using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL), relevant websites and search engines (e.g. guideline specific websites, governmental, charitable, and professional practice organisations) and hand-searching of bibliographies and reference lists. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and CPGs using a pre-defined relevance criteria form. From each included CPG, we will extract definitions and terms for cryptogenic stroke; recommendations related to assessment and investigation of the aetiology of stroke, including the grade of recommendations and underpinning evidence. The quality of the included CPGs will be assessed using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool. Recommendations across the CPGs will be summarised descriptively highlighting areas of convergence and divergence between CPGs., Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first review to systematically compare recommendations of international CPGs on investigating the aetiology of ischaemic stroke. The findings will allow for a better understanding of international perspectives on the optimum level of investigations required following a stroke and thus contribute to achieving greater international consensus on best practice in this important and complex area., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019127822.

Background: Self-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is uncertainty over the optimal self-monitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine "true" underlying blood pressure., Methods: Six electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently., Results: From 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%-91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%-96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day's measurement was necessary., Conclusions: Home blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

Objective: Self-management of hypertension can reduce and control blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic monitoring. However, self-management relies on patients following an algorithm, which may be variably adhered to. This study reports fidelity of high-risk patients to the self-management algorithm set by the TASMIN-SR trial., Methods: Patients with hypertension, above target clinic BP and one or more of stroke, diabetes, coronary heart disease or chronic kidney disease, were invited to self-monitor following an individualized self-titration algorithm. Home BP readings and medication change details were submitted monthly for 12 months. Readings downloaded from patients' electronic monitors were compared with written submissions, and protocol fidelity was assessed., Results: Two hundred and seventy-six patients were randomized to self-management and 225 (82%) completed the required training sessions. Of these, 166 (74%) completed self-management. A total of 11385 (89.6%) submitted readings were accurate compared with corresponding downloaded monitor readings. Mean error rate was 5.2% per patient, which increased with age but not comorbidities. Patients made 475 of 683 (69.5%) algorithm-recommended medication changes, equating to nearly three medication changes per patient. Mean SBP for patients who completed training and made all recommended changes dropped from 141 mmHg (95% CI 138.26-144.46) to 121 mmHg (95% CI 118.30-124.17 mmHg) compared with 129 mmHg (95% CI 125.27-136.73 mmHg) for patients who made none., Conclusion: Most patients randomized to self-management completed training; however, 36% of these had dropped out by 12 months. Self-monitoring was largely undertaken properly and accurately recorded. Fidelity with self-management was associated with lower achieved SBP. Successful implementation of self-management into daily practice requires careful training and should be accompanied by monitoring of fidelity.

Background: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension., Methods and Findings: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies., Conclusions: Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

Background: Previous research suggests that most GPs in the UK use self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) to monitor the control of hypertension rather than for diagnosis. This study sought to assess current practice in the use of self-monitoring and any changes in practice following more recent guideline recommendations., Aim: To survey the views and practice of UK GPs in 2015 with regard to SMBP and compare them with a previous survey carried out in 2011., Design and Setting: Web-based survey of a regionally representative sample of 300 UK GPs., Method: GPs completed an online questionnaire concerning the use of SMBP in the management of hypertension. Analyses comprised descriptive statistics, tests for between-group differences (z, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ 2 tests), and multivariate logistic regression., Results: Results were available for 300 GPs (94% of those who started the survey). GPs reported using self-monitoring to diagnose hypertension (169/291; 58%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 52 to 64) and to monitor control (245/291; 84%; 95% CI = 80 to 88), the former having significantly increased since 2011 (from 37%; 95% CI = 33 to 41; P<0.001) with no change in monitoring for control. More than half of GPs used higher systolic thresholds for diagnosis (118/169; 70%; 95% CI = 63 to 77) and treatment (168/225; 75%; 95% CI = 69 to 80) than recommended in guidelines, and under half (120/289; 42%; 95% CI = 36 to 47) adjusted the SMBP results to guide treatment decisions., Conclusion: Since new UK national guidance in 2011, GPs are more likely to use SMBP to diagnose hypertension. However, significant proportions of GPs continue to use non-standard diagnostic and monitoring thresholds. The use of out-of-office methods to improve the accuracy of diagnosis is unlikely to be beneficial if suboptimal thresholds are used., (© British Journal of General Practice 2016.)

Background: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease., Design and Methods: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management., Results: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year., Conclusion: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2015.)

Introduction: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is effective in reducing blood pressure in hypertension. However previous meta-analyses have shown a considerable amount of heterogeneity between studies, only part of which can be accounted for by meta-regression. This may be due to differences in design, recruited populations, intervention components or results among patient subgroups. To further investigate these differences, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure will be performed., Methods and Analysis: We will identify randomised trials that have compared patients with hypertension who are self-monitoring blood pressure with those who are not and invite trialists to provide IPD including clinic and/or ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure at baseline and all follow-up points where both intervention and control groups were measured. Other data requested will include measurement methodology, length of follow-up, cointerventions, baseline demographic (age, gender) and psychosocial factors (deprivation, quality of life), setting, intensity of self-monitoring, self-monitored blood pressure, comorbidities, lifestyle factors (weight, smoking) and presence or not of antihypertensive treatment. Data on all available patients will be included in order to take an intention-to-treat approach. A two-stage procedure for IPD meta-analysis, stratified by trial and taking into account age, sex, diabetes and baseline systolic BP will be used. Exploratory subgroup analyses will further investigate non-linear relationships between the prespecified variables. Sensitivity analyses will assess the impact of trials which have and have not provided IPD., Ethics and Dissemination: This study does not include identifiable data. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and by international conference presentations., Conclusions: IPD analysis should help the understanding of which self-monitoring interventions for which patient groups are most effective in the control of blood pressure., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

This study aimed to evaluate, in detail, the implementation of the self-management intervention used in the TASMINH2 trial. The intervention, comprising self-monitoring for the first week of each month and an individualised treatment self-titration schedule, was developed from a previous trial of self-management. Two hundred and sixty-three patients with poorly controlled but treated hypertension were randomised to receive this intervention and underwent training over two or three sessions. Participants were followed up for 12 months during which time process data were collected regarding the persistence and fidelity of actual behaviour compared with intervention recommendations. Two hundred and forty-one (92%) patients completed training of whom 188 (72%) self-managed their BP and completed at least 90% of expected self-monitoring measurements for the full year of the study. Overall, 268/483 (55%) of recommended medication changes were implemented. Only 25 (13%) patients had controlled BP throughout the year and so were not recommended any medication changes. Adherence to the protocol reduced over time as the number of potential changes increased. Of those self-managing throughout, 131 (70%) made at least one medication change, with 77 (41%) implementing all their recommended changes. In conclusion, self-management of hypertension was possible in practice with most participants making at least one medication change. Although adherence to the intervention reduced over time, implementation of treatment recommendations appeared better than equivalent trials using physician titration. Future self-management interventions should aim to better support patients' decision making, perhaps through enhanced use of technology.

Aims: Self-monitoring and self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) is a novel intervention which improves blood pressure control. However, little evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood pressure in general and self-management in particular. This study aimed to evaluate whether self-management of hypertension was cost-effective., Design and Methods: A cohort Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken extrapolating to up to 35 years from cost and outcome data collected from the telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2). Self-management of hypertension was compared with usual care in terms of lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness using a UK Health Service perspective. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness over time from self-management., Results: In the long-term, when compared with usual care, self-management was more effective by 0.24 and 0.12 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient for men and women, respectively. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for self-management was £1624 per QALY for men and £4923 per QALY for women. There was at least a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective for both sexes at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses around the assumptions made, provided that the effects of self-management lasted at least two years for men and five years for women., Conclusion: Self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives and telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of health care resources., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Importance: Self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) results in lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension, but there are no data about patients in high-risk groups., Objective: To determine the effect of self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care on systolic blood pressure among patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease., Design, Setting, and Patients: A primary care, unblinded, randomized clinical trial involving 552 patients who were aged at least 35 years with a history of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease and with baseline blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg being treated at 59 UK primary care practices was conducted between March 2011 and January 2013., Interventions: Self-monitoring of blood pressure combined with an individualized self-titration algorithm. During the study period, the office visit blood pressure measurement target was 130/80 mm Hg and the home measurement target was 120/75 mm Hg. Control patients received usual care consisting of seeing their health care clinician for routine blood pressure measurement and adjustment of medication if necessary., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure between intervention and control groups at the 12-month office visit., Results: Primary outcome data were available from 450 patients (81%). The mean baseline blood pressure was 143.1/80.5 mm Hg in the intervention group and 143.6/79.5 mm Hg in the control group. After 12 months, the mean blood pressure had decreased to 128.2/73.8 mm Hg in the intervention group and to 137.8/76.3 mm Hg in the control group, a difference of 9.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.7-12.7) in systolic and 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.8-5.0) in diastolic blood pressure following correction for baseline blood pressure. Multiple imputation for missing values gave similar results: the mean baseline was 143.5/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 144.2/79.9 mm Hg in the control group, and at 12 months, the mean was 128.6/73.6 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 138.2/76.4 mm Hg in the control group, with a difference of 8.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-12.7) for systolic and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.7-5.5) for diastolic blood pressure between groups. These results were comparable in all subgroups, without excessive adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care resulted in lower systolic blood pressure at 12 months., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN87171227.

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: Self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives leads to reduced blood pressure. Patients are keen on self-monitoring but little is known about healthcare professional views., Aim: To explore health professionals' views and experiences of patient self-management, particularly with respect to future implementation into routine care., Design and Setting: Qualitative study embedded within a randomised controlled trial of healthcare professionals participating in the TASMINH2 trial of patient self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives from 24 West Midlands general practices., Method: Taped and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 13 GPs, two practice nurses and one healthcare assistant. Constant comparative method of analysis., Results: Primary care professionals were positive about self-monitoring, but procedures for ensuring patients measured blood pressure correctly were haphazard. GPs interpreted home readings variably, with many not making adjustment for lower home blood pressure. Interviewees were satisfied with patient training and arrangements for blood pressure monitoring and self-titration of medication during the trial, but less sure about future implementation into routine care. There was evidence of a need for training of both patients and professionals for successful integration of self-management., Conclusion: Health professionals wanted more patient involvement in hypertension care but needed a framework to work within. Consideration of how to train patients to measure blood pressure and how home readings become part of their care is required before self-monitoring and self-titration can be implemented widely. As home monitoring becomes more widespread, the development of patient self-management, including self-titration of medication, should follow but this may take time to achieve.

Background: Self-monitoring of hypertension with self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) results in lower systolic blood pressure for at least one year. However, few people in high risk groups have been evaluated to date and previous work suggests a smaller effect size in these groups. This trial therefore aims to assess the added value of self-management in high risk groups over and above usual care., Methods/design: The targets and self-management for the control of blood pressure in stroke and at risk groups (TASMIN-SR) trial will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-management of blood pressure (BP) compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have a history of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes or chronic kidney disease and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care or self-management. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in office SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP and covariates. 540 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-management and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power. Secondary outcomes will include self-efficacy, 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 analysis will gain insights into patients' views, experiences and decision making processes., Discussion: The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-management of blood pressure in people with stroke and other high risk conditions would be applicable to many hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK and beyond., Trial Registration: ISRCTN87171227.

Background: Self-management of hypertension, comprising self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of medication, improves blood pressure control, but little is known regarding the views of patients undertaking it., Aim: To explore patients' views of self-monitoring blood pressure and self-titration of antihypertensive medication., Design and Setting: Qualitative study embedded within the randomised controlled trial TASMINH2 (Telemonitoirng and Self Management in the Control of Hypertension) trial of patient self-management of hypertension from 24 general practices in the West Midlands., Method: Taped and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 23 intervention patients were used. Six family members were also interviewed. Analysis was by a constant comparative method., Results: Patients were confident about self-monitoring and many felt their multiple home readings were more valid than single office readings taken by their GP. Although many patients self-titrated medication when required, others lacked the confidence to increase medication without reconsulting with their GP. Patients were more comfortable with titrating medication if their blood pressure readings were substantially above target, but were reluctant to implement such a change if readings were borderline. Many planned to continue self-monitoring after the study finished and report home readings to their GP, but few wished to continue with a self-management plan., Conclusion: Participants valued the additional information and many felt confident in both self-monitoring blood pressure and self-titrating medication. The reluctance to change medication for borderline readings suggests behaviour similar to the clinical inertia seen for physicians in analogous circumstances. Additional support for those lacking in confidence to implement prearranged medication changes may allow more patients to undertake self-management.

Background: Control of blood pressure is a key component of cardiovascular disease prevention, but is difficult to achieve and until recently has been the sole preserve of health professionals. This study assessed whether self-management by people with poorly controlled hypertension resulted in better blood pressure control compared with usual care., Methods: This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 24 general practices in the UK. Patients aged 35-85 years were eligible for enrolment if they had blood pressure more than 140/90 mm Hg despite antihypertensive treatment and were willing to self-manage their hypertension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to self-management, consisting of self-monitoring of blood pressure and self-titration of antihypertensive drugs, combined with telemonitoring of home blood pressure measurements or to usual care. Randomisation was done by use of a central web-based system and was stratified by general practice with minimisation for sex, baseline systolic blood pressure, and presence or absence of diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change in mean systolic blood pressure between baseline and each follow-up point (6 months and 12 months). All randomised patients who attended follow-up visits at 6 months and 12 months and had complete data for the primary outcome were included in the analysis, without imputation for missing data. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN17585681., Findings: 527 participants were randomly assigned to self-management (n=263) or control (n=264), of whom 480 (91%; self-management, n=234; control, n=246) were included in the primary analysis. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 12.9 mm Hg (95% CI 10.4-15.5) from baseline to 6 months in the self-management group and by 9.2 mm Hg (6.7-11.8) in the control group (difference between groups 3.7 mm Hg, 0.8-6.6; p=0.013). From baseline to 12 months, systolic blood pressure decreased by 17.6 mm Hg (14.9-20.3) in the self-management group and by 12.2 mm Hg (9.5-14.9) in the control group (difference between groups 5.4 mm Hg, 2.4-8.5; p=0.0004). Frequency of most side-effects did not differ between groups, apart from leg swelling (self-management, 74 patients [32%]; control, 55 patients [22%]; p=0.022)., Interpretation: Self-management of hypertension in combination with telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements represents an important new addition to control of hypertension in primary care., Funding: Department of Health Policy Research Programme, National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development, and Midlands Research Practices Consortium., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is an increasingly common part of hypertension management. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the systolic and diastolic BP reduction, and achievement of target BP, associated with self-monitoring., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, database of abstracts of clinical effectiveness, the health technology assessment database, the NHS economic evaluation database, and the TRIP database were searched for studies where the intervention included self-monitoring of BP and the outcome was change in office/ambulatory BP or proportion with controlled BP. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was combined with meta-regression to investigate heterogeneity in effect sizes., Results: A total of 25 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (27 comparisons) were identified. Office systolic BP (20 RCTs, 21 comparisons, 5,898 patients) and diastolic BP (23 RCTs, 25 comparisons, 6,038 patients) were significantly reduced in those who self-monitored compared to usual care (weighted mean difference (WMD) systolic -3.82 mmHg (95% confidence interval -5.61 to -2.03), diastolic -1.45 mmHg (-1.95 to -0.94)). Self-monitoring increased the chance of meeting office BP targets (12 RCTs, 13 comparisons, 2,260 patients, relative risk = 1.09 (1.02 to 1.16)). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for all three comparisons, which could be partially accounted for by the use of additional co-interventions., Conclusion: Self-monitoring reduces blood pressure by a small but significant amount. Meta-regression could only account for part of the observed heterogeneity.

Background: Controlling blood pressure with drugs is a key aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention, but until recently has been the sole preserve of health professionals. Self-management of hypertension is an under researched area in which potential benefits for both patients and professionals are great., Methods and Design: The telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2) will be a primary care based randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and qualitative analyses in order to evaluate the costs and effects of increasing patient involvement in blood pressure management, specifically with respect to home monitoring and self titration of antihypertensive medication compared to usual care. Provision of remote monitoring results to participating practices will ensure that practice staff are able to engage with self management and provide assistance where required. 478 patients will be recruited from general practices in the West Midlands, which is sufficient to detect clinically significant differences in systolic blood pressure between self-management and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power. Patients will be excluded if they demonstrate an inability to self monitor, their blood pressure is below 140/90 or above 200/100, they are on three or more antihypertensive medications, have a terminal disease or their blood pressure is not managed by their general practitioner. The primary end point is change in mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) between baseline and each follow up point (6 months and 12 months). Secondary outcomes will include change in mean diastolic blood pressure, costs, adverse events, health behaviours, illness perceptions, beliefs about medication, medication compliance and anxiety. Modelling will evaluate the impact of costs and effects on a system wide basis. The qualitative analysis will draw upon the views of users, informal carers and professionals regarding the acceptability of self-management and prerequisites for future widespread implementation should the trial show this approach to be efficacious., Discussion: The TASMINH2 trial will provide important new evidence regarding the costs and effects of self monitoring with telemonitoring in a representative primary care hypertensive population.