A cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of a physician-pharmacist collaborative model to improve blood pressure control

Education programmes for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes

BACKGROUND

Adherence to complex regimens for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes is often poor. Interventions to enhance adherence require intensive education and behavioural counselling. However, whether the existing evidence is scientifically rigorous and can support recommendations for routine use of educational programmes in people with CKD and diabetes is still unknown. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of education programmes for people with CKD and diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 19 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the benefits and harms of educational programmes (information and behavioural instructions and advice given by a healthcare provider, who could be a nurse, pharmacist, educator, health professional, medical practitioner, or healthcare provider, through verbal, written, audio-recording, or computer-aided modalities) for people 18 years and older with CKD and diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted and entered data. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (13 reports, 840 randomised participants) were included. The overall risk of bias was low for objective outcomes and attrition bias, unclear for selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, and high for subjective outcomes. Education programmes compared to routine care alone probably decrease glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (4 studies, 467 participants: MD -0.42%, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.31; moderate certainty evidence; 13.5 months follow-up) and may decrease total cholesterol (179 participants: MD -0.35 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.63 to -00.07; low certainty evidence) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (179 participants: MD -0.40 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; low certainty evidence) at 18 months of follow-up. One study (83 participants) reported education programmes for people receiving dialysis who have diabetes may improve the diabetes knowledge of diagnosis, monitoring, hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, medication with insulin, oral medication, personal health habits, diet, exercise, chronic complications, and living with diabetes and coping with stress (all low certainty evidence). There may be an improvement in the general knowledge of diabetes at the end of the intervention and at the end of the three-month follow-up (one study, 97 participants; low certainty evidence) in people with diabetes and moderately increased albuminuria (A2). In participants with diabetes and moderately increased albuminuria (A2) (one study, 97 participants), education programmes may improve a participant's beliefs in treatment effectiveness and total self-efficacy at the end of five weeks compared to routine care (low certainty evidence). Self-efficacy for in-home blood glucose monitoring and beliefs in personal control may increase at the end of the three-month follow-up (low certainty evidence). There were no differences in other self-efficacy measures. One study (100 participants) reported an education programme may increase change in behaviour for general diet, specific diet and home blood glucose monitoring at the end of treatment (low certainty evidence); however, at the end of three months of follow-up, there may be no difference in any behaviour change outcomes (all low certainty evidence). There were uncertain effects on death, serious hypoglycaemia, and kidney failure due to very low certainty evidence. No data was available for changes in kidney function (creatinine clearance, serum creatinine, doubling of serum creatinine or proteinuria). For an education programme plus multidisciplinary, co-ordinated care compared to routine care, there may be little or no difference in HbA1c, kidney failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), systolic or diastolic blood pressure, hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, and LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (all low certainty evidence in participants with type-2 diabetes mellitus and documented advanced diabetic nephropathy). There were no data for death, patient-orientated measures, change in kidney function (other than eGFR and albuminuria), cardiovascular disease morbidity, quality of life, or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Education programmes may improve knowledge of some areas related to diabetes care and some self-management practices. Education programmes probably decrease HbA1c in people with CKD and diabetes, but the effect on other clinical outcomes is unclear. This review only included eight studies with small sample sizes. Therefore, more randomised studies are needed to examine the efficacy of education programmes on important clinical outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes.

The cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-physician collaborative care models vs usual care on time in target systolic blood pressure range in patients with hypertension: a payer perspective

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is highly prevalent in the United States, affecting nearly half of all adults (43%). Studies have shown that pharmacist-physician collaborative care models (PPCCMs) for hypertension management significantly improve blood pressure (BP) control rates and provide consistent control of BP. Time in target range (TTR) for systolic BP is a novel measure of BP control consistency that is independently associated with decreased cardiovascular risk. There is no evidence that observed improvement in TTR for systolic BP with a PPCCM is cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a PPCCM with usual care for the management of hypertension from the payer perspective. METHODS: We used a decision analytic model with a 3-year time horizon based on published literature and publicly available data. The population consisted of adult patients who had a previous diagnosis of high BP (defined as office-based BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg) or were receiving antihypertensive medications. Effectiveness data were drawn from 2 published studies evaluating the effect of PPCCMs (vs usual care) on TTR for systolic BP and the impact of TTR for systolic BP on 4 cardiovascular outcomes (nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, heart failure [HF], and cardiovascular disease [CVD] death). The model incorporated direct medical costs, including both programmatic costs (ie, direct costs for provider time) and downstream health care utilization associated with acute cardiovascular events. One-way sensitivity and threshold analyses examined model robustness. RESULTS: In base-case analyses, PPCCM hypertension management was associated with lower downstream medical expenditures (difference: -$162.86) and lower total program costs (difference: -$108.00) when compared with usual care. PPCCM was associated with lower downstream medical expenditures across all parameter ranges tested in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. For every 10,000 hypertension patients managed with PPCCM vs usual care over a 3-year time horizon, approximately 27 CVD deaths, 29 strokes, 21 nonfatal MIs, and 12 incident HF diagnoses are expected to be averted. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PPCCM compared to usual care on TTR for systolic BP in adults with hypertension. PPCCM was less costly to administer and resulted in downstream health care savings and fewer acute cardiovascular events relative to usual care. Although further research is needed to evaluate the long-term costs and outcomes of PPCCM, payer coverage of PPCCM services may prevent future health care costs and improve patient cardiovascular outcomes. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the completion of this research. The authors have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented as an abstract at the AMCP 2021 Virtual, April 12-16, 2021.

Effect of a Physician/Pharmacist Collaborative Care Model on Time in Target Range for Systolic Blood Pressure: Post Hoc Analysis of the CAPTION Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Longer time in target range (TTR) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events. Team-based care improves SBP control but its effect on the consistency of SBP control over time is unknown. This post hoc analysis used data from a cluster-randomized trial of a physician/pharmacist collaborative model that randomized medical offices to either a 9- or 24-month pharmacist intervention or control group. TTR for SBP was calculated using linear interpolation and an SBP range of 110 to 130 mm Hg. TTR is reported as median values and group comparisons assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Of the 625 participants enrolled, 524 had 9-month and 366 had 24-month SBP data. Participants were a median 59 years old, 59% female, and 52% minority. After 24 months, the median TTR for SBP was 31.9% and 29.8% for the 9- and 24-month intervention groups, respectively, compared with 19% in the control group (P=0.0068). This observation persisted in the subgroup of participants with diabetes or chronic kidney disease and minorities. A longer TTR was not associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events. Time to first observed SBP in the target range was shorter in the intervention group compared with control (270 versus 365 days; P=0.0047). A physician/pharmacist collaborative care model achieved longer TTR for SBP compared with control (usual care).

Dissemination of a telehealth cardiovascular risk service: The CVRS live protocol

BACKGROUND

Medical clinics are increasingly hiring clinical pharmacists to improve management of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the limited number of clinical pharmacists employed in a clinic may not impact the large number of complex patients needing the services. We have developed a remote telehealth service provided by clinical pharmacists to complement CVD services provided by on-site clinical pharmacists and aid sites without a clinical pharmacist. This cardiovascular risk service (CVRS) has been studied in two NIH-funded trials, however, we identified barriers to optimal intervention implementation. The purpose of this study is to examine how to implement the CVRS into medical offices and see if the intervention will be sustained.

METHODS

This is a 5-year, pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial in 13 primary care clinics across the US. We randomized clinics to receive CVRS or usual care and will enroll 325 patient subjects and 288 key stakeholder subjects. We have obtained access to the electronic medical records (EMRs) of all study clinics to recruit subjects and provide the pharmacist intervention. The intervention is staggered so that after 12 months, the usual care sites will receive the intervention for 12 months. Follow-up will be accomplished though medical record abstraction at baseline, 12 months, 24 months, and 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will enroll subjects through 2021 and results will be available in 2024. This study will provide unique information on how the CVRS provided by remote clinical pharmacists can be effectively implemented in medical offices, many of which already employ on-site clinical pharmacists.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

NCT03660631: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03660631.

A pharmacist intervention for monitoring and treating hypertension using bidirectional texting: PharmText BP

BACKGROUND

New approaches are needed to better monitor blood pressure (BP) between physician visits, especially for patients in rural areas or for those who lack transportation. We have developed a custom-built bi-directional texting platform for home BP measurements that can then be managed by clinical pharmacists located remotely. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the BP texting approach combined with a pharmacist-based intervention improves BP management and to determine if the approach is cost effective.

METHODS

This study is a randomized, prospective trial in four primary care offices that serve patients in rural areas. Subjects will receive standardized research BP measurements at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome will be differences between the intervention and control group in mean systolic BP at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include systolic BP at 6 months; diastolic BP at 6 and 12 months, number of medication changes and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study plans to enroll subjects through 2022, follow-up will be completed in 2023 and results will be available in 2024. This study will provide information on whether a combined approach using texting of home BP values and a pharmacist-based telehealth services can improve BP control.

Cluster-Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Centralized Clinical Pharmacy Service in Private Family Medicine Offices

BACKGROUND

The use of clinical pharmacists in primary care has improved the control of several chronic cardiovascular conditions. However, many private physician practices lack the resources to implement team-based care with pharmacists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a centralized, remote, clinical pharmacy service could improve guideline adherence and secondary measures of cardiovascular risk in primary care offices in rural and small communities.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective trial in 12 family medicine offices cluster randomized to either the intervention or usual care. The intervention was delivered for 12 months, and subjects had research visits at baseline and 12 months. The primary outcome was adherence to guidelines, and secondary outcomes included changes in key cardiovascular risk factors and preventative health measures. We enrolled 302 subjects. There was no improvement in the Guideline Advantage score from baseline to 12 months in the control group (64.7% versus 63.1%, respectively; P=0.21). There was a statistically significant improvement in the intervention group from 63.3% at baseline to 67.8% at 12 months (P=0.02). The estimated benefit of the intervention was 5.0%±2.4% (95% confidence interval=-0.5% to 10.4%; P=0.07). Several criteria were significantly better for intervention subjects, including appropriate statin therapy (P<0.001), body mass index, screening (P<0.001), and alcohol screening (P<0.001). Only 13.7% of subjects with diabetes mellitus had hemoglobin A1c at goal at baseline, and this increased to 30.8% and 21.0% in the intervention and control group, respectively, at 12 months (P=0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

The centralized, remote pharmacist intervention was successfully implemented. The improvements in outcomes were modest, in part because of higher than expected baseline guideline adherence. Future studies of this model should focus on patients with uncontrolled conditions at high risk for cardiovascular events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01983813.

Validity and reliability pilot study of a tool for assessing ambulatory care pharmacist practice

PURPOSE

The reliability and validity of a survey tool that aims to assess and stratify patient care services provided by ambulatory care pharmacists were evaluated.

METHODS

The Tool for Assessing Ambulatory Care Pharmacist Practice (TAAPP) was developed by updating the Pharmaceutical Care Clinical Pharmacist Questionnaire. The TAAPP is organized into 2 sections that include 5 domains derived from the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process (PPCP). The first section of the TAAPP gathers the demographic information of the respondents as well as practice site characteristics. The second section aims to assess the activities that ambulatory care pharmacists participate in when providing direct patient care, stratified by PPCP domains. After the TAAPP was created, face validity was established by the study investigators and content validity was confirmed by 5 experts in ambulatory care pharmacy. Lastly, a reliability study was conducted and included pharmacists providing ambulatory care services in outpatient clinics who had been working at their clinical practice site for at least 2 years. The survey was disseminated electronically through a national pharmacy organization listserver.

RESULTS

The results of this pilot study support both face and content validity of the TAAPP survey as well as internal consistency reliability of the TAAPP scores when used to evaluate pharmaceutical practices of ambulatory care pharmacists practicing in outpatient clinics throughout the United States.

CONCLUSION

Internal consistency reliability testing demonstrated that the TAAPP scores were reliable with a Cronbach's α of >0.7 for each domain and the TAAPP overall.

Translational science matters: forging partnerships between biomedical and behavioral science to advance the public's health

The prevention and effective treatment of many chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes are dependent on behaviors such as not smoking, adopting a physically-active lifestyle, eating a healthy diet, and adhering to prescribed medical and behavioral regimens. Yet adoption and maintenance of these behaviors pose major challenges for individuals, their families and communities, as well as clinicians and health care systems. These challenges can best be met through the integration of the biomedical and behavioral sciences that is achieved by the formation of strategic partnerships between researchers and practitioners in these disciplines to address pressing clinical and public health problems. The National Institutes of Health has supported a number of clinical trials and research initiatives that demonstrate the value of biomedical and behavioral science partnerships in translating fundamental discoveries into significant improvements in health outcomes. We review several such examples of collaborations between biomedical and behavioral researchers, describe key initiatives focused on advancing a transdisciplinary translational perspective, and outline areas which require insights, tools and findings from both the biomedical and behavioral sciences to advance the public's health.

Pharmacist Intervention for Blood Pressure Control in Patients with Diabetes and/or Chronic Kidney Disease

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to determine if hypertensive patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD) receiving a pharmacist intervention had a greater reduction in mean blood pressure (BP) and improved BP control at 9 months compared with those receiving usual care; and compare Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) guideline and 2014 guideline (JNC 8) BP control rates in patients with DM and/or CKD.

METHODS

This cluster randomized trial included 32 medical offices in 15 states. Clinical pharmacists made treatment recommendations to physicians at intervention sites. This post hoc analysis evaluated mean BP and BP control rates in the intervention and control groups.

MAIN RESULTS

The study included 335 patients (227 intervention, 108 control) when mean BP and control rates were evaluated by JNC 7 inclusion and control criteria. When JNC 8 inclusion and control criteria were applied, 241 patients (165 intervention, 76 control) remained and were included in the analysis. The pharmacist-intervention group had significantly greater mean systolic blood pressure reduction compared with usual care at 9 months (8.64 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.8 to -4.49, p<0.001). The pharmacist-intervention group had significantly higher BP control at 9 months than usual care by either the JNC 7 or JNC 8 inclusion and control groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.01-3.86, p=0.0470 and OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.21-3.85, p=0.0102, respectively).

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention was effective in reducing mean systolic BP and improving BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension with DM and/or CKD, regardless of which BP guidelines were used.

Team-Based Care with Pharmacists to Improve Blood Pressure: a Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review studies published since 2014 that examined team-based care strategies and involved pharmacists to improve blood pressure (BP). We then discuss opportunities and challenges to sustainment of team-based care models in primary care clinics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies presented in this review have demonstrated that team-based care including pharmacists can improve BP management. Studies highlighted the cost-effectiveness of a team-based pharmacy intervention for BP control in primary care clinics. Little information was found on factors influencing sustainability of team-based care interventions to improve BP control. Future work is needed to determine the best populations to target with team-based BP programs and how to implement team-based approaches utilizing pharmacists in diverse clinical settings. Future studies need to not only identify unmet clinical needs but also address reimbursement issues and stakeholder engagement that may impact sustainment of team-based care interventions.

Pharmacist-Driven Strategies for Hypertension Management in Los Angeles: A Community and Stakeholder Needs Assessment, 2014-2015

In 2014, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health received federal funding to improve the prevention and control of hypertension in the population through team-based health care delivery models, such as pharmacist-led medication therapy management. To inform this work, the department conducted a 3-part needs assessment consisting of 1) a targeted context scan of regional policies and efforts, 2) a key stakeholder survey, and 3) a public opinion internet-panel survey of Los Angeles residents. Results suggest that political will and professional readiness exists for expansion of pharmacist-led medication management strategies in Los Angeles. However, several infrastructure and economic barriers, such as a lack of sufficient payment or reimbursement mechanisms for these services, impede progress. The department is using assessment results to address barriers and shape efforts in scaling up pharmacist-led programming in Los Angeles.

Physician-Pharmacist Collaborative Management: Narrowing the Socioeconomic Blood Pressure Gap

Physician-pharmacist collaboration improves blood pressure, but there is little information on whether this model can reduce the gap in healthcare disparities. This trial involved 32 medical offices in 15 states. A clinical pharmacist was embedded within each office and made recommendations to physicians and patients in intervention offices. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate whether the pharmacist intervention could reduce healthcare disparities by improving blood pressure in high-risk racial and socioeconomic subjects compared with the control group. The analyses in minority subjects were prespecified secondary analyses, but all other comparisons were secondary, post hoc analyses. The 9-month visit was completed by 539 patients: 345 received the intervention, and 194 were in the control group. Following the intervention, mean systolic blood pressure was found to be 7.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.4, 12.3) lower in subjects from racial minority groups who received the intervention compared with the control group (P=0.0042). Subjects with ≤12 years of education in the intervention group had a systolic blood pressure 8.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 3.2, 13.1) lower than the control group with lower education (P=0.0001). Similar reductions in blood pressure occurred in patients with low incomes, those receiving Medicaid, or those without insurance. This study demonstrated that a pharmacist intervention reduced racial and socioeconomic disparities in the treatment of blood pressure. Although disparities in blood pressure were reduced by the intervention, there were still nonsignificant gaps in mean systolic blood pressure when compared with intervention subjects not at risk.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00935077.

Primary Care Physician-Pharmacist Collaborative Care Model: Strategies for Implementation

The Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) trial recently found that a pharmacist intervention for hypertension could be implemented in diverse medical offices. In this issue of Pharmacotherapy, the article by Brian Isetts and colleagues discusses the complexity of the patient population, the specific functions the pharmacists performed, and the time estimates from billing records used to quantify time spent during face-to-face patient encounters. This invited commentary will discuss findings from the CAPTION trial and provide recommendations for strategies to implement similar interventions for patients with other chronic medical conditions seen in primary care practices.

Evaluation of Pharmacists' Work in a Physician-Pharmacist Collaborative Model for the Management of Hypertension

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Physician-pharmacist collaborative models have been shown to improve the care of patients with numerous chronic medical conditions. Team-based health care using integrated clinical pharmacists provides one opportunity to improve quality in health care systems that use population-based financing. In November 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requested that the relative value of pharmacists' work in team-based care needs to be established. Thus the objective of this study was to describe the components of pharmacists' work in the management of hypertension with a physician-pharmacist collaborative model.

DESIGN

Descriptive analysis of the components of pharmacists' work in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians to Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) study, a prospective, cluster randomized trial.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

This analysis was intended to provide policymakers with data and information, using the CAPTION study model, on the time and intensity of pharmacists' work to understand pharmacists' relative value contributions in the context of CMS financing and population management aims. The CAPTION trial was conducted in 32 community-based medical offices in 15 U.S. states and included 390 patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Blood pressure was measured by trained study coordinators in each office, and patients were included in the study if they had uncontrolled blood pressure. Included patients were randomized to a 9-month intervention, a 24-month intervention, or usual care. The goal of the pharmacist intervention was to improve blood pressure control and resolve drug therapy problems impeding progress toward blood pressure goals. This intervention included medical record review, a structured assessment with the patient, collaboration to achieve goals of therapy, and patient follow-up. The two intervention arms (9 and 24 mo) were identical the first 9 months, and that time frame is the focus of this workload evaluation. Pharmacists completed study encounter forms for every patient encounter and estimated time spent in pre-visit, face-to-face care, and post-visit activities. Among the 390 patients, there were 2811 encounters with pharmacists that involved 3.44 hours/patient for face-to-face care visits plus 1.55 hours/patient for pre-visit and post-visit work. Intensity of work was reflected in interventions to resolve drug therapy problems with patients (43% of encounters) and with physicians (1169 recommendations, of which physicians accepted 1153 [98.6%]), resulting in improvement of patients' blood pressure goals achieved (from 0% at baseline to 43% at 9 months based on the primary study end point).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists provided extensive interventions to patients with hypertension. This analysis provides a framework for health systems, provider groups, and payers to measure pharmacists' work in value-based financing and population management.

Evolution of Clinical Pharmacy in the USA and Future Directions for Patient Care

This paper describes key events in pharmaceutical education, training, practice, and research that have occurred over the past 55 years. Some of these events included the development of the doctor of pharmacy degree, residency training, and co-location of clinical pharmacists in patient care areas. These changes not only necessitated more specialized training but then led to board certification to ensure quality patient care. Specific examples of the research that have supported the involvement of clinical pharmacists in direct patient care will be discussed.

Physician-pharmacist collaboration versus usual care for treatment-resistant hypertension

Team-based care has been recommended for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH), but its efficacy in this setting is unknown. We compared a physician-pharmacist collaborative model (PPCM) to usual care in patients with TRH participating in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians To Improve Outcomes Now study. At baseline, 169 patients (27% of Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians To Improve Outcomes Now patients) had TRH: 111 received the PPCM intervention and 58 received usual care. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms. After 9 months, adjusted mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7 mm Hg more with PPCM intervention than usual care (P = .036). Blood pressure control was 34.2% with PPCM versus 25.9% with usual care (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-11.2). These findings suggest that team-based care in the primary care setting may be effective for TRH. Additional research is needed regarding the long-term impact of these models and to identify patients most likely to benefit from team-based interventions.

Characterization of published randomized controlled trials assessing clinical pharmacy services around the world

A critical analysis of the research on clinical pharmacy services with regards to study characteristics has not been undertaken since 1998. However, several meta-analyses have been conducted to demonstrate the impact of pharmacists' interventions in specific medical conditions. These meta-analyses present high heterogeneity in part because the interventions are poorly and inconsistently described in primary studies. The aim of this article is to present the characteristics of randomized control trials (RCTs) that assess clinical pharmacy services to identify areas of improvement in future pharmacy practice research studies. Different emphasis of research across geographic regions of the world were also examined. During these 40 years, 520 articles reporting 439 RCTs assessing clinical pharmacy services were published. Of the 439 studies, 77.7% (n = 341) were published in the year 2000 or thereafter, 41.46% (n = 182) were conducted in the US, 27.56% (n = 121) in Europe, and 30.98% (n = 136) in the rest of the world. Studies in pharmacy practice have improved in terms of design, with an increase in the number of published RCTs after 2000. However, the small sample size of RCTs is still an issue. After 2000, a significantly higher proportion of studies were conducted in community pharmacy, targeting specific medical conditions, and with a higher number of patients randomized to the intervention group. Conversely, a significantly smaller proportion of studies were conducted in the hospital and targeted a single recipient after 2000. Studies conducted in the US had significantly more intervention arms, focused mostly on a specific medical condition, and were performed in primary care. Different health care systems' organization and policies may influence clinical pharmacy services research across countries.

Cluster randomized trials for pharmacy practice research

Introduction Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are now the gold standard in health services research, including pharmacy-based interventions. Studies of behaviour, epidemiology, lifestyle modifications, educational programs, and health care models are utilizing the strengths of cluster randomized analyses. Methodology The key property of CRTs is the unit of randomization (clusters), which may be different from the unit of analysis (individual). Subject sample size and, ideally, the number of clusters is determined by the relationship of between-cluster and within-cluster variability. The correlation among participants recruited from the same cluster is known as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Generally, having more clusters with smaller ICC values will lead to smaller sample sizes. When selecting clusters, stratification before randomization may be useful in decreasing imbalances between study arms. Participant recruitment methods can differ from other types of randomized trials, as blinding a behavioural intervention cannot always be done. When to use CRTs can yield results that are relevant for making "real world" decisions. CRTs are often used in non-therapeutic intervention studies (e.g. change in practice guidelines). The advantages of CRT design in pharmacy research have been avoiding contamination and the generalizability of the results. A large CRT that studied physician-pharmacist collaborative management of hypertension is used in this manuscript as a CRT example. The trial, entitled Collaboration Among Pharmacists and physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION), was implemented in primary care offices in the United States for hypertensive patients. Limitations CRT design limitations include the need for a large number of clusters, high costs, increased training, increased monitoring, and statistical complexity.

Pharmacist intervention for blood pressure control: medication intensification and adherence

The objective of this study was to describe medication adherence and medication intensification in a physician-pharmacist collaborative management (PPCM) model compared with usual care. This study was a prospective, cluster, randomized study in 32 primary care offices from 15 states. The primary outcomes were medication adherence and anti-hypertensive medication changes during the first 9 months of the intervention. The 9-month visit was completed by 539 patients, 345 of which received the intervention. There was no significant difference between intervention and usual care patients in regards to medication adherence at 9 months. Intervention patients received significantly more medication changes (4.9 vs.1.1; P = .0003) and had significantly increased use of diuretics and aldosterone antagonists when compared with usual care (P = .01).The PPCM model increased medication intensification; however, no significant change in medication adherence was detected. PPCM models will need to develop non-adherence identification and intervention methods to further improve the potency of the care team.

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Centralized Clinical Pharmacy Cardiovascular Risk Service to Improve Guideline Adherence

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have demonstrated the value of including pharmacists in team-based care to improve adherence to cardiovascular (CV) guidelines, medication adherence, and risk factor control. However, there is limited information on whether these models can be successfully implemented more widely in diverse settings and populations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a centralized, web-based cardiovascular risk service (CVRS) managed by clinical pharmacists will improve guideline adherence in multiple primary care medical offices with diverse geographic and patient characteristics.

METHODS

This study is a prospective trial in 20 primary care offices stratified by the percent of under-represented minorities and then randomized to either the CVRS intervention or usual care. The intervention will last for 12 months and all subjects will have research visits at baseline and 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference in guideline adherence between groups. Data will also be abstracted from the medical record at 24 months to determine if the intervention effect is sustained after it is discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient enrollment will continue through 2016, with results expected in 2019. This study will provide information on whether a distant, centralized CVRS can be implemented in large numbers of medical offices, if it is effective in diverse populations, and if there is a long-term sustained effect.

A centralized cardiovascular risk service to improve guideline adherence in private primary care offices

BACKGROUND

Many large health systems now employ clinical pharmacists in team-based care to assist patients and physicians with management of cardiovascular (CV) diseases. However, small private offices often lack the resources to hire a clinical pharmacist for their office. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a centralized, web-based CV risk service (CVRS) managed by clinical pharmacists will improve guideline adherence in primary care medical offices in rural and small communities.

METHODS

This study is a cluster randomized prospective trial in 12 primary care offices. Medical offices were randomized to either the CVRS intervention or usual care. The intervention will last for 12 months and all subjects will have research visits at baseline and 12 months. Primary outcomes will include adherence to treatment guidelines and control of key CV risk factors. Data will also be abstracted from the medical record at 30 months to determine if the intervention effect is sustained after it is discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will enroll subjects through 2015 and results will be available in 2018. This study will provide information on whether a distant, centralized CV risk service can improve guideline adherence in medical offices that lack the resources to employ clinical pharmacists.

Cluster-randomized trial of a physician/pharmacist collaborative model to improve blood pressure control

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a physician/pharmacist collaborative model would be implemented as determined by improved blood pressure (BP) control in primary care medical offices with diverse geographic and patient characteristics and whether long-term BP control could be sustained.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective, cluster-randomized trial of 32 primary care offices stratified and randomized to control, 9-month intervention (brief), and 24-month intervention (sustained). We enrolled 625 subjects with uncontrolled hypertension; 54% from racial/ethnic minority groups and 50% with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome of BP control at 9 months was 43% in intervention offices (n=401) compared with 34% in the control group (n=224; adjusted odds ratio, 1.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.50]; P=0.059). The adjusted difference in mean systolic/diastolic BP between the intervention and control groups for all subjects at 9 months was -6.1/-2.9 mm Hg (P=0.002 and P=0.005, respectively), and it was -6.4/-2.9 mm Hg (P=0.009 and P=0.044, respectively) in subjects from racial or ethnic minorities. BP control and mean BP were significantly improved in subjects from racial minorities in intervention offices at 18 and 24 months (P=0.048 to P<0.001) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results of the primary outcome (BP control) were negative, the key secondary end point (mean BP) was significantly improved in the intervention group. Thus, the findings for secondary end points suggest that team-based care using clinical pharmacists was implemented in diverse primary care offices and BP was reduced in subjects from racial minority groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00935077.

[The pharmacist-physician collaboration for IPW: from physician's perspective]

Interprofessional work (IPW) is increasingly important in various settings including primary care, in which the role of pharmacists is particularly important. Many studies have shown that in cases of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and metabolic syndrome, physician-pharmacist collaboration can improve medication adherence and help to identify drug-related problems. Some surveys and qualitative studies revealed barriers and key factors for effective physician-pharmacist collaboration, including trustworthiness and role clarification. In Japan, some cases of good collaborative work between pharmacists and physicians in hospitals and primary care settings have been reported. Still, community pharmacists in particular have difficulties collaborating with primary care doctors because they have insufficient medical information about patients, they feel hesitant about contacting physicians, and they usually communicate by phone or fax rather than face to face. Essential competencies for good interprofessional collaboration have been proposed by the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC): interprofessional communication; patient/client/family/community-centered care; role clarification; team functioning; collaborative leadership; and interprofessional conflict resolution. Our interprofessional education (IPE) team regularly offers educational programs to help health professionals learn interprofessional collaboration skills. We expect many pharmacists to learn those skills and actively to facilitate interprofessional collaboration.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a pharmacist-led collaborative intervention to improve statin prescribing and attainment of cholesterol targets in primary care

BACKGROUND

Small trials with short term follow up suggest pharmacists' interventions targeted at healthcare professionals can improve prescribing. In comparison with clinical guidance, contemporary statin prescribing is sub-optimal and achievement of cholesterol targets falls short of accepted standards, for patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who are at highest absolute risk and who stand to obtain greatest benefit. We hypothesised that a pharmacist-led complex intervention delivered to doctors and nurses in primary care, would improve statin prescribing and achievement of cholesterol targets for incident and prevalent patients with vascular disease, beyond one year.

METHODS

We allocated general practices to a 12-month Statin Outreach Support (SOS) intervention or usual care. SOS was delivered by one of 11 pharmacists who had received additional training. SOS comprised academic detailing and practical support to identify patients with vascular disease who were not prescribed a statin at optimal dose or did not have cholesterol at target, followed by individualised recommendations for changes to management. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving cholesterol targets. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of patients prescribed simvastatin 40 mg with target cholesterol achieved; cholesterol levels; prescribing of simvastatin 40 mg; prescribing of any statin and the proportion of patients with cholesterol tested. Outcomes were assessed after an average of 1.7 years (range 1.4-2.2 years), and practice level simvastatin 40 mg prescribing was assessed after 10 years.

FINDINGS

We randomised 31 practices (72 General Practitioners (GPs), 40 nurses). Prior to randomisation a subset of eligible patients were identified to characterise practices; 40% had cholesterol levels below the target threshold. Improvements in data collection procedures allowed identification of all eligible patients (n = 7586) at follow up. Patients in practices allocated to SOS were significantly more likely to have cholesterol at target (69.5% vs 63.5%; OR 1.11, CI 1.00-1.23; p = 0.043) as a result of improved simvastatin prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed the primary outcome was achieved by prevalent but not incident patients. Statistically significant improvements occurred in all secondary outcomes for prevalent patients and all but one secondary outcome (the proportion of patients with cholesterol tested) for incident patients. SOS practices prescribed more simvastatin 40 mg than usual care practices, up to 10 years later.

INTERPRETATION

Through a combination of educational and organisational support, a general practice based pharmacist led collaborative intervention can improve statin prescribing and achievement of cholesterol targets in a high-risk primary care based population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Register ISRCTN61233866.

Physician-pharmacist collaborative management of asthma in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To determine if asthma control improves in patients who receive physician-pharmacist collaborative management (PPCM) during visits to primary care medical offices.

DESIGN

Prospective pre-post study of patients who received the intervention in primary care offices for 9 months. The primary outcome was the sum of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations at 9 months before, 9 months during, and 9 months after the intervention. Events were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression. Secondary analysis was conducted for patients with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] less than 20). Additional secondary outcomes included the ACT, the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire by Marks (AQLQ-M) scores, and medication changes.

INTERVENTION

Pharmacists provided patients with an asthma self-management plan and education and made pharmacotherapy recommendations to physicians when appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients, the number of emergency department (ED) visits and/or hospitalizations decreased 30% during the intervention (p=0.052) and then returned to preenrollment levels after the intervention was discontinued (p=0.83). Secondary analysis of patients with uncontrolled asthma at baseline (ACT less than 20), showed 37 ED visits and hospitalizations before the intervention, 21 during the intervention, and 33 after the intervention was discontinued (p=0.019). ACT and AQLQ-M scores improved during the intervention (ACT mean absolute increase of 2.11, AQLQ-M mean absolute decrease of 4.86, p<0.0001) and sustained a stable effect after discontinuation of the intervention. Inhaled corticosteroid use increased during the intervention (p=0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

The PPCM care model reduced asthma-related ED visits and hospitalizations and improved asthma control and quality of life. However, the primary outcome was not statistically significant for all patients. There was a significant reduction in ED visits and hospitalizations during the intervention for patients with uncontrolled asthma at baseline. Our findings support the need for further studies to investigate asthma outcomes achievable with the PPCM model.

Medication therapy management clinic: perception of healthcare professionals in a University medical center setting

Objective

To determine the overall perception and utilization of the pharmacist managed medication therapy management (MTM) clinic services, by healthcare professionals in a large, urban, university medical care setting.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, anonymous survey sent to 195 healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists at The University of Illinois Outpatient Care Center to determine their perception and utilization of the MTM clinic. The survey consisted of 12 questions and was delivered through a secure online application.

Results

Sixty-two healthcare professionals (32%) completed the survey. 82% were familiar with the MTM clinic, and 63% had referred patients to the clinic. Medication adherence and disease state management was the most common reason for referral. Lack of knowledge on the appropriate referral procedure was the prominent reason for not referring patients to the MTM clinic. Of the providers that were aware of MTM services, 44% rated care as ‘excellent’, 44% as ‘good’, 5% as ‘fair’, and 0% stated ‘poor’. Strengths of MTM clinic identified by healthcare providers included in-depth education to patients, close follow-up, and detailed medication reconciliation provided by MTM clinic pharmacists. Of those familiar with MTM clinic, recommendations included; increase marketing efforts to raise awareness of the MTM clinic service, create collaborative practice agreements between MTM pharmacists and physicians, and ensure that progress notes are more concise.

Conclusions

In a large, urban, academic institution MTM clinic is perceived as a valuable resource to optimize patient care by providing patients with in-depth education as it relates to their prescribed medications and disease states. These identified benefits of MTM clinic lead to frequent patient referrals specifically for aid with medication adherence and disease state management.

Statistical power in three-arm cluster randomized trials

This article shows how to compute statistical power for testing the main effect of treatment in three-arm cluster randomized trials. Using orthogonal coding, we derive the exact test statistic of the treatment effect and its non-central distribution. The non-centrality parameter in the omnibus test is found to be related to the non-centrality parameters in the contrast tests. A study of physician and pharmacist comanagement of patients' blood pressure is used as an example to show the power computation in a three-arm cluster randomized trial.

Institutional review board barriers and solutions encountered in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians to Improve Outcomes Now Study: a national multicenter practice-based implementation trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To categorize institutional review board (IRB) challenges and solutions encountered in a multicenter practice-based research network (PBRN) study and to assess the impact of IRB requirements on the willingness of individual principal investigators (PIs) to participate in future PBRN studies.

DESIGN

Descriptive analysis of IRB challenges and solutions encountered in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians to Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) trial, a multicenter prospective cluster-randomized study conducted by the National Interdisciplinary Primary Care PBRN, and a correlational analysis from a survey of individual site PIs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

IRB barriers encountered and solutions were categorized for study sites. A survey of study-site PIs was conducted with a correlational analysis assessing the impact of various IRB requirements and the willingness of individual PIs to participate in future PBRN studies; of 31 study sites participating in the CAPTION study, 28 study-site PIs were surveyed. IRBs posed a number of challenges including bias regarding the source of the application, issues regarding study design, study instruments, access to patient records, study procedures, Spanish-only speaking subjects, role of clinic physicians, interdepartmental concerns, and updates at continuing review. Responses from the PI survey (21 of 28 PIs surveyed [75% response rate]) indicated that the willingness of an individual to serve as a PI in the future was inversely related to the perceived difficulty of obtaining initial (rS  = -0.599, p=0.004) and continuing (rS  = -0.464, p=0.034) IRB approval.

CONCLUSION

Significant time and resources were required to address various challenges associated with IRB approval, which had a negative impact on an individual PI's willingness to participate in future PBRN projects. A revision of current rules and regulations regarding the protection of human subjects for practice-based studies, improvement in IRB processes, and support from coordinating centers may decrease the burden associated with IRB approval and increase participation in practice-based research.

Physician-pharmacist co-management and 24-hour blood pressure control

The objectives of this study were to compare indices of 24-hour blood pressure (BP) following a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention and to describe the associated changes in antihypertensive medications. This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, cluster-randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 family medicine clinics randomized to co-managed (n=3 clinics, 176 patients) or control (n=3 clinics, 198 patients) groups. Mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) was significantly lower in the co-managed vs the control group: daytime BP 122.8 mm Hg vs 134.4 mm Hg (P<.001); nighttime SBP 114.8 mm Hg vs 123.7 mm Hg (P<.001); and 24-hour SBP 120.4 mm Hg vs 131.8 mm Hg (P<.001), respectively. Significantly more drug changes were made in the co-managed than in the control group (2.7 vs 1.1 changes per patient, P<.001), and there was greater diuretic use in co-managed patients (79.6% vs 62.6%, P<.001). Ambulatory BPs were significantly lower for the patients who had a diuretic added during the first month compared with those who never had a diuretic added (P<.01). Physician-pharmacist co-management significantly improved ambulatory BP compared with the control group. Antihypertensive drug therapy was intensified much more for patients in the co-managed group.

Similar blood pressure values across racial and economic groups: baseline data from a group randomized clinical trial

This paper examines baseline characteristics from a prospective, cluster-randomized trial in 32 primary care offices. Offices were first stratified by percentage of minorities and level of clinical pharmacy services and then randomized into 1 of 3 study groups. The only differences between randomized arms were for marital status (P=.03) and type of insurance coverage (P<.001). Blood pressures (BPs) were similar in Caucasians and minority patients, primarily blacks, who were hypertensive at baseline. On multivariate analyses, patients who were 65 years and older had higher systolic BP (152.4 ± 14.3 mm Hg), but lower diastolic BP (77.3 ± 11.8 mm Hg) compared with those younger than 65 years (147.4 ± 15.0/88.6 ± 10.6 mm Hg, P<.001 for both systolic and diastolic BP). Other factors significantly associated with higher systolic BP were a longer duration of hypertension (P=.04) and lower basal metabolic index (P=.011). Patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease had a lower systolic BP than those without these conditions (P<.0001). BP was similar across racial and socioeconomic groups for patients with uncontrolled hypertension in primary care, suggesting that patients with uncontrolled hypertension and an established primary care relationship likely have different reasons for poor BP control than other patient populations.

Using theory to predict implementation of a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention within a practice-based research network

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that physician/pharmacist collaboration can improve management of chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a correlation exists between existing clinical pharmacy services within a practice-based research network (PBRN) and provider attitudes and beliefs regarding implementing a new pharmacy intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

METHODS

A validated survey was completed by one clinical pharmacist from each office. This instrument evaluated the current clinical pharmacy services provided in the medical office. TPB instruments were developed that measured beliefs concerning implementation of a clinical pharmacy intervention for either blood pressure or asthma. The pharmacy services and TPB surveys were then administered to physicians and pharmacists in 32 primary care offices throughout the United States.

RESULTS

Physicians returned 321 (35.9%) surveys, while pharmacists returned 40 (75.5%). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients generally ranged from 0.65 to 0.98. TPB subscale scores were lower in offices rated with lower pharmacy service scores, but these differences were not statistically significant. There was no correlation between clinical pharmacy service score and providers' TPB subscale scores. In both the hypertension and asthma groups, pharmacists scores were significantly higher than physicians' scores on the attitudes subscale in the multivariate analysis (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists consistently scored higher than physicians on the TPB, indicating that they felt the hypertension or asthma intervention would be more straightforward for them to implement than did physicians. There was no significant correlation between clinical pharmacy service scores and attitudes toward implementing a future physician/pharmacist collaborative intervention using the TPB. Future studies should investigate the ability of the TPB instrument to predict implementation of a similar intervention in offices of physicians never exposed to clinical pharmacy services.

Sustained blood pressure control following discontinuation of a pharmacist intervention

Team-based care can improve hypertension control. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate blood pressure (BP) control 18 months following the discontinuation of a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention. This was a retrospective analysis of patients who had previously participated in a prospective, cluster randomized, controlled clinical trial. Six community-based family medicine offices were randomized to control or intervention groups. Research nurses measured BPs using an automated device during the prospective trial. The research nurses then abstracted data from medical records, including BPs, medications, changes in therapy, and laboratory values for 18 months following the discontinuation of the 6-month prospective trial. The study included 228 patients in the control (n = 146) or intervention (n = 82) groups. The control group contained more patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease (P < .013), were older (P = .047), and had more coexisting conditions (P < .001) than the intervention group. Systolic BP 9 months following discontinuation of the physician-pharmacist intervention was 137.2 ± 18.2 mm Hg and 129.8 ± 13.3 mm Hg in the control and intervention groups, respectively (P = .0015). BP control was maintained in 61 (41.8%) control patients and 55 (67.1%) intervention patients (P = .0003). At 18 months post-intervention, systolic BP was 138.1 ± 20.4 mm Hg and 130.0 ± 16.0 mm Hg in the control and intervention groups, respectively (P = .023). BP control was maintained in 53 (36.3%) control patients and 55 (67.1%) intervention patients at 18 months post-intervention (P < .0001). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to address the uneven distribution of patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, and the differences between groups were still significant. BP control rates remained significantly higher following a physician-pharmacist intervention compared with usual care for 18 months after discontinuation of the intervention. This model has the potential value as a useful long-term strategy to benefit patients with hypertension.

Pharmacist-physician comanagement of hypertension and reduction in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressures

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist-physician comanagement of hypertension has been shown to improve office blood pressures (BPs). We sought to describe the effect of such a model on 24-hour ambulatory BPs.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial, enrolling 179 patients with uncontrolled hypertension from 5 primary care clinics in Iowa City, Iowa. Patients were randomized by clinic to receive pharmacist-physician collaborative management of hypertension (intervention) or usual care (control) for a 9-month period. In the intervention group, pharmacists helped patients to identify barriers to BP control, counseled on lifestyle and dietary modifications, and adjusted antihypertensive therapy in collaboration with the patients' primary care providers. Patients were seen by pharmacists a minimum of every 2 months. Ambulatory BP was measured at baseline and at study end.

RESULTS

Baseline and end-of-study ambulatory BP profiles were evaluated for 175 patients. Mean (SD) ambulatory systolic BPs (SBPs), reported in millimeters of mercury, were reduced more in the intervention group than in the control group: daytime change in (Δ) SBP, 15.2 (11.5) vs 5.5 (13.5) (P < .001); nighttime ΔSBP, 12.2 (14.8) vs 3.4 (13.3) (P < .001); and 24-hour ΔSBP, 14.1 (11.3) vs 5.5 (12.5) (P < .001). More patients in the intervention group than in the control group had their BP controlled at the end of the study (75.0% vs 50.7%) (P < .001), as defined by overall 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-physician collaborative management of hypertension achieved consistent and significantly greater reduction in 24-hour BP and a high rate of BP control. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00201045.