Search results
Found 19982 matches for
We lead multidisciplinary applied research and training to rethink the way health care is delivered in general practice and across the community.
Effectiveness of Hypertension Management Strategies in SPRINT-Eligible US Adults: A Simulation Study
BACKGROUND: Despite reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and death in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive systolic blood pressure goals have not been adopted in the United States. This study aimed to simulate the potential long-term impact of 4 hypertension management strategies in SPRINT-eligible US adults. METHODS AND RESULTS: The validated Blood Pressure Control–Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes (ie, visit frequency, blood pressure [BP] measurement accuracy, medication intensification, and medication adherence) and CVD outcomes, was populated with 25 000 SPRINT-eligible US adults. Four hypertension management strategies were simulated: (1) usual care targeting BP <140/90 mm Hg (Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care), (2) intensive care per the SPRINT protocol targeting BP <120/90 mm Hg (SPRINT intensive), (3) usual care targeting guideline-recommended BP <130/80 mm Hg (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care), and (4) team-based care added to usual care and targeting BP <130/80 mm Hg. Relative to the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, among the 18.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults, an estimated 138 100 total CVD events could be prevented per year with SPRINT intensive, 33 900 with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care, and 89 100 with team-based care. Compared with the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, SPRINT intensive care was projected to increase treatment-related serious adverse events by 77 600 per year, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care by 33 300, and team-based care by 27 200. CONCLUSIONS: As BP control has declined in recent years, health systems must prioritize hypertension management and invest in effective strategies. Adding team-based care to usual care may be a pragmatic way to manage risk in this high-CVD-risk population.
Effect of antihypertensive deprescribing on hospitalisation and mortality: long-term follow-up of the OPTiMISE randomised controlled trial
Background: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality. Methods: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221). Findings: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7–4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference –0·35 drugs [95% CI –0·52 to –0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00]). Interpretation: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives. Funding: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Strategies for Identifying Patients for Deprescribing of Blood Pressure Medications in Routine Practice: An Evidence Review
Purpose of Review: To summarise the evidence regarding which patients might benefit from deprescribing antihypertensive medications. Recent Findings: Older patients with frailty, multi-morbidity and subsequent polypharmacy are at higher risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment, and therefore may benefit from antihypertensive deprescribing. It is possible to examine an individual’s risk of these adverse events, and use this to identify those people where the benefits of treatment may be outweighed by the harms. While such patients might be considered for deprescribing, the long-term effects of this treatment strategy remain unclear. Summary: Evidence now exists to support identification of those who are at risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment. These patients could be targeted for deprescribing interventions, although the long-term benefits and harms of this approach are unclear. Perspectives: Randomised controlled trials are still needed to examine the long-term effects of deprescribing in high-risk patients with frailty and multi-morbidity.
Cardiovascular Events Risk in Office-Masked Nocturnal Hypertension Defined by Home Blood Pressure Monitoring
Background: Nocturnal home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) may identify people at higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than expected. Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the association between office-masked nocturnal hypertension, defined by HBPM, and CVD risk in a clinical practice-based population. Methods: Prospective observational study including Japanese high cardiovascular-risk participants. Three office blood pressures (OBPs) were taken on two different occasions. Nocturnal home blood pressure (HBP) was measured three times per night for 2 weeks. The association between office-masked nocturnal hypertension and time to first CVD events (fatal and nonfatal stroke or coronary heart disease) was examined using Cox regression. Results: The cohort included 2,545 participants who were followed for a median of 7.8 years (18,116 person-years), during which 152 CVD events occurred. The proportions of participants with nocturnal normotension (OBP <140/90 mm Hg and nocturnal HBP <120/70 mm Hg), white-coat nocturnal hypertension (OBP ≥140/90 mm Hg and nocturnal HBP <120/70 mm Hg), office-masked nocturnal hypertension (OBP <140/90 mm Hg and nocturnal HBP ≥120/70 mm Hg), and sustained nocturnal hypertension (OBP ≥140/90 mm Hg and nocturnal HBP ≥120/70 mm Hg) were 25.3%, 14.4%, 23.2%, and 37.1%, respectively. Relative to nocturnal normotension, those with both office-masked nocturnal hypertension (adjusted HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.01-2.92) and sustained nocturnal hypertension (adjusted HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.03-2.96) had similarly increased CVD risk, even after adjustment for daytime HBP values. Conclusions: Screening for office-masked nocturnal hypertension with HBPM identifies a potentially important group of patients with increased risk for incident CVD events for whom additional preventative measures may be appropriate.
Twelve hot questions in the management of hypertension in patients aged 80+ years and their answers with the help of the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines
Arterial hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and highly prevalent in older age, underscoring the importance of its appropriate management. The population is ageing at an increasing rate, with those aged 80R years being the fastest growing population characterized by high heterogeneity in terms of functionality and autonomy. The prevalence of hypertension rises with increasing age, due to a significant increase in SBP largely as a result of agerelated stiffening of the aorta and other large arteries, affecting almost 80% of those aged 80R years. Appropriate management of blood pressure in this population is a priority for clinicians. Frailty is a condition characterized by marked vulnerability to adverse health outcomes and is common among older adults including those with hypertension. Hypertension increases frailty level and at the same time, individuals with increasing frailty present with more drug-related adverse effects meaning they are less tolerant to blood pressure lowering by medication. Thus, frailty is a factor that should be integrated when treating hypertension in this population. The European Society of Hypertension 2023 Guidelines on the management of Hypertension are the first international guidelines to integrate the concept of adapting blood pressure management in older adults according to their frailty/functionality level, and to propose practical tools for the application of this concept in the daily practice of physicians and other healthcare professionals. The present article prepared by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Hypertension in Older Adults aims to further address some important aspects mentioned concisely in the 2023 European Society of Hypertension guidelines, in order to help physicians and other healthcare professionals including those practicing in primary care. To this end, this study discusses 12 'hot questions' which are answered with the help of the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines. We hope the present article and Working Group's actions will contribute to understanding and applying the ideal management of hypertension in this most vulnerable population.
Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people
Background: Hypertension is an important risk factor for subsequent cardiovascular events, including ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline, and premature death. Overall, the use of antihypertensive medications has led to a reduction in cardiovascular disease, morbidity rates, and mortality rates. However, the use of antihypertensive medications is also associated with harms, especially in older people, including the development of adverse drug reactions and drug-drug interactions, and can contribute to increasing medication-related burden. As such, discontinuation of antihypertensives may be considered appropriate in some older people. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of withdrawal of antihypertensive medications used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults. Search methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2022, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to October 2022. We also conducted reference checking and citation searches, and contacted study authors to identify any additional studies when appropriate. There were no language restrictions on the searches. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of withdrawal versus continuation of antihypertensive medications used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults (defined as 50 years of age and over). Eligible participants were living in the community, residential aged care facilities, or based in hospital settings. We included trials evaluating the complete withdrawal of all antihypertensive medication, as well as those focusing on a dose reduction of antihypertensive medication. Data collection and analysis: We compared the intervention of discontinuing or reducing the dose of antihypertensive medication to continuing antihypertensive medication using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous variables, and Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for binary variables. Our primary outcomes were mortality, myocardial infarction, and the development of adverse drug reactions or adverse drug withdrawal reactions. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisation, stroke, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic), falls, quality of life, and success in withdrawing from antihypertensives. Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Main results: We identified no new studies in this update. Six RCTs from the original review met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (1073 participants). Study duration and follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 56 weeks. Meta-analysis of studies showed that discontinuing antihypertensives, compared to continuing, may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 2.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 5.46; P = 0.14, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 630 participants; low certainty of evidence), and that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on myocardial infarction (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.19 to 17.98; P = 0.59, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 447 participants; very low certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible for the development of adverse drug reactions and withdrawal reactions; the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihypertensive discontinuation on the risk of adverse drug reactions (very low certainty of evidence), and the included studies did not assess adverse drug withdrawal reactions specifically. One study reported on hospitalisations; discontinuing antihypertensives may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; P = 0.70; 1 study, 385 participants; low certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis showed that discontinuing antihypertensives may result in little to no difference in stroke (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.35; P = 0.68, I2 = 6%; 3 studies, 524 participants; low certainty of evidence). Blood pressure may be higher in the discontinuation group than the continuation group (systolic blood pressure: MD 9.75 mmHg, 95% CI 7.33 to 12.18; P < 0.001, I2 = 67%; 5 studies, 767 participants; low certainty of evidence; and diastolic blood pressure: MD 3.5 mmHg, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.18; P < 0.001, I2 = 47%; 5 studies, 768 participants; low certainty of evidence). No studies reported falls. The sources of bias included selective reporting (reporting bias), lack of blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and lack of blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias). Authors' conclusions: The main conclusions from the 2020 review still apply. Discontinuing antihypertensives may result in little to no difference in mortality, hospitalisation, and stroke. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of discontinuing antihypertensives on myocardial infarction and adverse drug reactions and adverse drug withdrawal reactions. Discontinuing antihypertensives may result in an increase in blood pressure. There was no information about the effect on falls. The evidence was of low to very low certainty, mainly due to small studies and low event rates. These limitations mean that we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the effect of deprescribing antihypertensives on these outcomes. Future research should focus on populations with the greatest uncertainty of the benefit:risk ratio for the use of antihypertensive medications, such as those with frailty, older age groups, and those taking polypharmacy, and measure clinically important outcomes such as adverse drug events, falls, and quality of life.
Understanding Measurement of Postural Hypotension (UMPH): a nationwide survey of general practice in England.
Background Postural hypotension (PH) is associated with excess mortality, falls and cognitive decline. PH is poorly recorded in routine general practice (practice) records. Few practice studies have explored measurement and diagnosis of PH. Aim To understand how PH is measured, diagnosed and managed in practice. Design and setting Online survey of practice staff in England. Method Clinical Research Networks distributed the survey to practices, seeking individual responses from any clinical staff involved in routine blood pressure (BP) measurement. Responses were analysed according to role and demographic data using descriptive statistics. Multivariable modelling of undertaking postural BP measurements was performed. Results 703 responses were received from 243 practices (mean practice-level response rate 17%). Half (362; 51%) of respondents were doctors, 196 (28%) practice nurses and 77 (11%) healthcare assistants (HCAs). Eight percent did not routinely check for PH, usually citing time constraints. For the remaining 92%, postural symptoms were the predominant reason for checking (97% respondents); only 24% cited any other guideline indication for PH testing. 77% used sit-to-stand BP measurements; only 25% measured standing BP for more than one minute. On regression modelling, other professionals tested less for PH than doctors (Odds ratios: nurses 0.323 (95% confidence interval 0.117 to 0.894), HCAs 0.102 (0.032 to 0.325), pharmacists 0.986 (0.024 to 0.412)). Conclusion Awareness of reasons, besides symptoms, and adherence to guidelines for PH testing, are low. Time is the key barrier to improved testing for PH. Clarity on pragmatic methods of measuring PH in practice would also facilitate measurement uptake.
How, why and when are delayed (back-up) antibiotic prescriptions used in primary care? A realist review integrating concepts of uncertainty in healthcare
Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global patient safety priority and inappropriate antimicrobial use is a key contributing factor. Evidence have shown that delayed (back-up) antibiotic prescriptions (DP) are an effective and safe strategy for reducing unnecessary antibiotic consumption but its use is controversial. Methods: We conducted a realist review to ask why, how, and in what contexts general practitioners (GPs) use DP. We searched five electronic databases for relevant articles and included DP-related data from interviews with healthcare professionals in a related study. Data were analysed using a realist theory-driven approach – theorising which context(s) influenced (mechanisms) resultant outcome(s) (context-mechanism-outcome-configurations: CMOCs). Results: Data were included from 76 articles and 41 interviews to develop a program theory comprising nine key and 56 related CMOCs. These explain the reasons for GPs’ tolerance of risk to different uncertainties and how these may interact with GPs’ work environment, self-efficacy and perceived patient concordance to make using DP as a safety-net or social tool more or less likely, at a given time-point. For example, when a GP uses clinical scores or diagnostic tests: a clearly high or low score/test result may mitigate scientific uncertainty and lead to an immediate or no antibiotic decision; an intermediary result may provoke hermeneutic (interpretation-related) uncertainty and lead to DP becoming preferred and used as a safety net. Our program theory explains how DP can be used to mitigate some uncertainties but also provoke or exacerbate others. Conclusion: This review explains how, why and in what contexts GPs are more or less likely to use DP, as well as various uncertainties GPs face which DP may mitigate or provoke. We recommend that efforts to plan and implement interventions to optimise antibiotic prescribing in primary care consider these uncertainties and the contexts when DP may be (dis)preferred over other interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing. We also recommend the following and have included example activities for: (i) reducing demand for immediate antibiotics; (ii) framing DP as an ‘active’ prescribing option; (iii) documenting the decision-making process around DP; and (iv) facilitating social and system support.