[Primary care evaluation of the hypertensive patient management in specialized care after derivation (DERIVA-2 Study)]

INTRODUCTION

To know the opinion/evaluation of the primary care physicians (PCPH) of the received information about patients that were attended in specialized care (SC).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

LOCATION

Performed nationwide in primary care centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers from the primary care network.

METHODS

We used the SEH-LELHA derivation criteria guidelines, plus an ad hoc survey that included demographic and anthropometric data, blood pressure levels, and the main reason for derivation to SC at the baseline and final (post-derivation) visit. In addition, time deployed for the study of every patient, changes in diagnosis and treatment, type of follow-up, issues throughout the derivation process and assessment of the medical referred to the PCPH were evaluated.

RESULTS

With participation of 578 researchers from primary, the study included 1715 patients aged 60.7±13.3years, 62.7% male. Patients were taking 2.3±1.2 (range 0-10) antihypertensive drugs pre-referral and 2.5±1.2 (0-9) after derivation. Blood pressure levels changed from 166±21.6 /97.7±12.6mmHg to 143±14.4 /85.5±10.5mmHg. The number of controlled patients (BP<140 and <90mmHg) increased from 5.8% to 32.2%. Time between pre- and post-derivation visit was 72±64days (median 57days, IQ26-99). The PCPH received a medical report in 80.3% of cases, 76.9% with an explanation of the results of the complementary tests, 75.8% with additional information or a reasoning of treatment and in 71% of cases information about the patient future management. 63% of PCPH were fully agreed with the management of the specialist, 29% agree and 2% strongly disagree. The derivation was evaluated as effective or very effective in 86% of patients and no effective in 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication between AE and SC in HTA is valued satisfactorily by MAP. However there is still room for improvement in the process.

Hypertension Attitude PersPEctives and Needs (HAPPEN): A Real-World Survey of Physicians and Patients With Hypertension in China

The Hypertension Attitude PersPEctives and Needs (HAPPEN) survey was a real-world survey of cardiologists, nephrologists, and patients with treated hypertension at level 3 hospitals in China. It aimed to characterize the attitudes and behavior of physicians and patients and to identify possible causes of poor blood pressure (BP) control. Randomly selected participants (100 cardiologists, 30 nephrologists, 400 patients) completed face-to-face interviews investigating BP control rates, consulting behavior, prescribing patterns, and attitudes toward hypertension management. Perceived levels of BP control were high; 70% of physicians and 85% of patients believed that BP targets were achieved, despite only 31% of patients achieving targets. Physician satisfaction with control rates and patient satisfaction with treatment were high. Differences in perceived and actual levels of BP control may be driving therapeutic inertia. In combination with inadequate patient evaluation and support services, therapeutic inertia may contribute to poor BP control among patients with treated hypertension in China.

Randomized Trial of the Effect of Pharmacist Prescribing on Improving Blood Pressure in the Community: The Alberta Clinical Trial in Optimizing Hypertension (RxACTION)

BACKGROUND

Hypertension control rates remain suboptimal. Pharmacists' scope of practice is evolving, and their position in the community may be ideal for improving hypertension care. We aimed to study the impact of pharmacist prescribing on blood pressure (BP) control in community-dwelling patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We designed a patient-level, randomized, controlled trial, enrolling adults with above-target BP (as defined by Canadian guidelines) through community pharmacies, hospitals, or primary care teams in 23 communities in Alberta. Intervention group patients received an assessment of BP and cardiovascular risk, education on hypertension, prescribing of antihypertensive medications, laboratory monitoring, and monthly follow-up visits for 6 months (all by their pharmacist). Control group patients received a wallet card for BP recording, written hypertension information, and usual care from their pharmacist and physician. Primary outcome was the change in systolic BP at 6 months. A total of 248 patients (mean age, 64 years; 49% male) were enrolled. Baseline mean±SD systolic/diastolic BP was 150±14/84±11 mm Hg. The intervention group had a mean±SE reduction in systolic BP at 6 months of 18.3±1.2 compared with 11.8±1.9 mm Hg in the control group, an adjusted difference of 6.6±1.9 mm Hg (P=0.0006). The adjusted odds of patients achieving BP targets was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.15 in favor of the intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist prescribing for patients with hypertension resulted in a clinically important and statistically significant reduction in BP. Policy makers should consider an expanded role for pharmacists, including prescribing, to address the burden of hypertension.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00878566.

Suitability of antiplatelet therapy in hypertensive patients

Antiplatelet therapy (AT) is indicated in hypertensive patients with increased cardiovascular risk. The literature about the adequate or inadequate prescription of AT is scarce. We conducted a prospective descriptive study to quantify therapeutic inertia and non-guideline-recommended prescription (NGRP) of AT (aspirinor clopidogrel or both), and to assess associated factors, calculating the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from multivariate models. In 2007-2009, 712 primary health-care hypertensive patients in a Spanish region were enrolled. Inertia was defined as the lack of an AT prescription, despite being indicated by guidelines, whereas NGRP was defined as AT prescription when there was no guideline recommendation. We also recorded cardiovascular variables. Inertia and NGRP were quantified for primary and secondary prevention. Of 108 patients in secondary prevention, 53 had inertia (49.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 39.6-58.5%). Associated profile: female (OR=0.460, P=0.091), no dyslipidemia (OR=0.393, P=0.048), no coronary heart disease (OR=0.215, P=0.001) and high diastolic blood pressure (OR=1.076, P=0.016). In primary prevention, NGRP was present in 69 of 595 patients (11.6%, 95% CI: 9.0-14.2%). Associated profile: male (OR=1.610, P=0.089), smoking (OR=2.055, P=0.045), dyslipidemia (OR=3.227, P<0.001) and diabetes (OR=2.795, P<0.001). Although certain factors were clearly associated with these phenomena much still remains to be learnt.

[A specific questionnaire to evaluate therapeutic inertia in hypertensive patients: a pilot study]

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic inertia (TI) is a recent concept still unknown by many physicians. In chronic diseases such as hypertension, it is defined as the tendency of physicians not to increase or change antihypertensive medications when the target blood pressure is not reached. Acting on TI could improve blood pressure control in France.

METHOD

This was a single-center prospective pilot study conducted by hypertension specialist physicians at the University Cardio-Vascular Center in Lille (France). It was conducted between March and June 2011. Data was collected from 161 hypertensive patients (mean age: 61.64±11.18 years; 98 (60.9%) male; 75 secondary prevention patients). Each physician completed a questionnaire on therapeutic inertia. TI was defined as a consultation in which treatment change was indicated (systolic blood pressure [BP]≥140 and/or diastolic BP≥90mmHg in all patients), but did not occur, with absence of an adapted justification of this choice. We considered as an adapted justification: a white coat effect demonstrated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home blood pressure monitoring; scheduled reassessment of the BP by ABPM; recent change in antihypertensive treatment (less than 4 weeks); hospitalization needed for complete evaluation of secondary causes of hypertension and a more detailed assessment of potential target organ damage in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension. Our study aimed to evaluate rates of TI, to identify factors associated with TI, and to test the TI questionnaire.

RESULTS

Therapeutic inertia as defined in this study occurred in 11 consultations (8.3%) of the 133 hypertensive patients having uncontrolled BP above or equal to 140 and/or 90mmHg. Significant factors associated with TI were older age (Z=2.35, P<0.05) and sleep apnea syndrome (χ(2)=8.33, P<0.05). The absence of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before the consultation (χ(2)=4.28, 0.1>P>0.05) and the number of consultations (Z=1.92, 0.1>P>0.05) exhibited a significant trend to be associated with TI.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rate of TI was low in our study conducted in a specialized center, a well-accepted definition of therapeutic inertia would be useful for further study. The feasibility of using the questionnaire tested with this study shows that this measurement tool could help physicians become more aware of TI, both in the hospital and primary care setting. Further multicenter studies are needed for validation.

[Medical conduct in primary care as regards blood pressure control. PRESCAP 2010 study]

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for more information on therapeutic inertia in blood pressure (BP) treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the therapeutic behaviour and associated factors of Primary Care (PC) physicians on uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional multicentre study of patients with hypertension attending Spanish PC centres. Data was collected from patients (social-demographics, clinical status and treatment), as well as data from physicians (medical practice, background and therapeutic behaviour) were collected. Uncontrolled BP was considered when average BP values where ≥140/90mmHg.

RESULTS

A total of 12,961 patients (52.0% women) were included. The mean age was 66.3 (SD 11.4) years, and mean number of years from diagnosis of hypertension was 9.1 (6.7) years. Almost two-thirds (62.4%) of the patients were taking a combined blood pressure treatment, (44.2% with two drugs and 18.2% with three drugs, or more). An uncontrolled BP was observed in 38.9% (95% CI: 38.1-39.7) of patients. Treatment was changed by physicians in 41.8% (95% CI: 40.4-43.2) out of 5,036 uncontrolled patients. Adding another drug was the most frequent behaviour (55.6%). The physician's perception of good BP control in uncontrolled patients, together with the presence of combined blood pressure treatment, were the two variables most strongly associated with therapeutic inertia.

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish PC Physician modified antihypertensive treatment in only 4 out of 10 uncontrolled patients. The physician's perception of good BP control was the variable most strongly associated with therapeutic inertia.

Reducing clinical inertia in hypertension treatment: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Clinical inertia is a major contributor to poor blood pressure (BP) control. The authors tested the effectiveness of an intervention targeting physician, patient, and office system factors with regard to outcomes of clinical inertia and BP control. A total of 591 adult primary care patients with elevated BP (mean systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg or mean diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg) were randomized to intervention or usual care. An outreach coordinator raised patient and provider awareness of unmet BP goals, arranged BP-focused primary care clinic visits, and furnished providers with treatment decision support. The intervention reduced clinical inertia (-29% vs -11%, P=.001). Nonetheless, change in BP did not differ between intervention and usual care (-10.1/-4.1 mm Hg vs -9.1/-4.5 mm Hg, P=.50 and 0.71 for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively). Future primary care-focused interventions might benefit from the use of specific medication titration protocols, treatment adherence support, and more sustained patient follow-up visits.

[Objective KONTROL study: therapeutic inertia in hypertensive patients attended in primary care of Spain]

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of therapeutic inertia (TI), and the factors associated to the patient, doctor and the health organisation, in hypertensive patients treated in Primary Care (PC).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, multicentre study.

SETTING

A sample of PC Teams from all over Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

The study was conducted among PC doctors using a questionnaire and clinical records of 4 patients.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

The TI was calculated for each patient (TIp) as the proportion of visits in which there was no change in medication when this was indicated.

RESULTS

A total of 543 PC doctors provided data on 2,032 patients, who fulfilled the indication of a change in requirement. There was TI In 77.8% of cases. The TIp observed was non-existent or low for 17.1% of the patients, intermediate for 42% and high for 40.8%. For the patients, the factors most associated with TIp were, age (P<.001), diabetes (P<.001), stroke (P<.01), obesity (P<.01) and a low education level (P<.001). To be female, be less than 40 years or more than 55 years, to be a family doctor with a training program other than MIR and to work in the public sector increased the probability of TIp (P<.001 for all the assumptions).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study indicate that there is TI in 7 out every 10 visits made by hypertensive patients in Primary care. There are significant differences as regards the clinical characteristics of the patients and of the doctors.

Physician perception of blood pressure control and treatment behavior in high-risk hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

We examined physician perception of blood pressure control and treatment behavior in patients with previous cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypertension as defined by European Guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in which 321 primary care physicians throughout Spain consecutively studied 1,614 patients aged ≥18 years who had been diagnosed and treated for hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg), and had suffered a documented cardiovascular event. The mean value of three blood pressure measurements taken using standardized procedures was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Mean blood pressure was 143.4/84.9 mmHg, and only 11.6% of these cardiovascular patients were controlled according to 2007 European Guidelines for Hypertension Management target of <130/80 mmHg. In 702 (49.2%) of the 1426 uncontrolled patients, antihypertensive medication was not changed, and in 480 (68.4%) of these cases this was due to the physicians judgment that blood pressure was adequately controlled. In 320 (66.7%) of the latter patients, blood pressure was 130-139/80-89 mmHg. Blood pressure level was the main factor associated (inversely) with no change in treatment due to physician perception of adequate control, irrespective of sociodemographic and clinical factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians do not change antihypertensive treatment in many uncontrolled cardiovascular patients because they considered it unnecessary, especially when the BP values are only slightly above the guideline target. It is possible that the guidelines may be correct, but there is also the possibility that the care by the physicians is appropriate since BP <130/80 mmHg is hard to achieve, and recent reviews suggest there is insufficient evidence to support such a low BP target.