Clinic-Based Strategies to Reach United States Million Hearts 2022 Blood Pressure Control Goals

Achieving Equity in Hypertension: A Review of Current Efforts by the American Heart Association

The purpose of this article is to summarize disparities in blood pressure (BP) by race in the United States, discuss evidence-based strategies to increase equity in BP, review recent American Heart Association BP equity initiatives, and highlight missed opportunities for achieving equity in hypertension. Over 122 million American adults have hypertension, with the highest prevalence among Black Americans. Racial disparities in hypertension and BP control in the United States are estimated to be the single largest contributor to the excess risk for cardiovascular disease among Black versus White adults. Worsening disparities in cardiovascular disease and life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemic warrant an evaluation of the strategies and opportunities to increase equity in BP in the United States. Racial disparities in hypertension are largely driven by systemic inequities that limit access to quality education, economic opportunities, neighborhoods, and health care. To address these root causes, recent studies have evaluated evidence-based strategies, including community health workers, digital health interventions, team-based care, and mobile health care to enhance access to health education, screenings, and BP care in Black communities. In 2021, the American Heart Association made a $100 million pledge and 10 commitments to support health equity. This commitment included implementing multifaceted interventions with a focus on hypertension as a seminal risk factor contributing to disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity. The American Heart Association is one organizational example of advocacy for equity in BP. Achieving equity nationwide will require sustained collaboration among individual stakeholders and public, private, and community organizations to address barriers across multiple socioecological levels.

Trends of Antihypertensive Prescription Among US Adults From 2010 to 2019 and Changes Following Treatment Guidelines: Analysis of Multicenter Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the use of antihypertensives changed in 2014 and 2017. To understand the effect of these guidelines, we examined trends in antihypertensive prescriptions in the United States from 2010 to 2019 using a repeated cross-sectional design.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using electronic health records from 15 health care institutions for adults (20-85 years old) who had ≥1 antihypertensive prescription, we assessed whether (1) prescriptions of beta blockers decreased after the 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) report discouraged use for first-line treatment, (2) prescriptions for calcium channel blockers and thiazide diuretics increased among Black patients after the JNC 8 report encouraged use as first-line therapy, and (3) prescriptions for dual therapy and fixed-dose combination among patients with blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg increased after recommendations in the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines. The study included 1 074 314 patients with 2 133 158 prescription episodes. After publication of the JNC 8 report, prescriptions for beta blockers decreased (3% lower in 2018-2019 compared to 2010-2014), and calcium channel blockers increased among Black patients (20% higher in 2015-2017 and 41% higher in 2018-2019, compared to 2010-2014), in accordance with guideline recommendations. However, contrary to guidelines, dual therapy and fixed-dose combination decreased after publication of the 2017 Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines (9% and 11% decrease in 2018-2019 for dual therapy and fixed-dose combination, respectively, compared to 2015-2017), and thiazide diuretics decreased among Black patients after the JNC 8 report (6% lower in 2018-2019 compared to 2010-2014).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guidelines on prescribing antihypertensive medication was inconsistent, presenting an opportunity for interventions to achieve better blood pressure control in the US population.

Managing Hypertension in Older Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The population of older adults 60-79 years globally is projected to double from 800 million to 1.6 billion between 2015 and 2050, while adults ≥ 80 years were forecast to more than triple from 125 to 430 million. The risk for cardiovascular events doubles with each decade of aging and each 20 mmHg increase of systolic blood pressure. Thus, successful management of hypertension in older adults is critical in mitigating the projected global health and economic burden of cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Women live longer than men, yet with aging systolic blood pressure and prevalent hypertension increase more, and hypertension control decreases more than in men, i.e., hypertension in older adults is disproportionately a women's health issue. Among older adults who are healthy to mildly frail, the absolute benefit of hypertension control, including more intensive control, on cardiovascular events is greater in adults ≥ 80 than 60-79 years old. The absolute rate of serious adverse events during antihypertensive therapy is greater in adults ≥ 80 years older than 60-79 years, yet the excess adverse event rate with intensive versus standard care is only moderately increased. Among adults ≥ 80 years, benefits of more intensive therapy appear non-existent to reversed with moderate to marked frailty and when cognitive function is less than roughly the twenty-fifth percentile. Accordingly, assessment of functional and cognitive status is important in setting blood pressure targets in older adults. Given substantial absolute cardiovascular benefits of more intensive antihypertensive therapy in independent-living older adults, this group merits shared-decision making for hypertension targets.

Association Between Self-Reported Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Inertia in Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial)

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic inertia (TI), failure to intensify antihypertensive medication when blood pressure (BP) is above goal, remains prevalent in hypertension management. The degree to which self-reported antihypertensive adherence is associated with TI with intensive BP goals remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cross-sectional analysis was performed of the 12-month visit of participants in the intensive arm of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which randomized adults to intensive (<120 mm Hg) versus standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP goals. TI was defined as no increase in antihypertensive regimen intensity score, which incorporates medication number and dose, when systolic BP is ≥120 mm Hg. Self-reported adherence was assessed using the 8-Item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and categorized as low (MMAS-8 score <6), medium (MMAS-8 score 6 to <8), and high (MMAS-8 score 8). Poisson regressions estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs for TI associated with MMAS-8. Among 1009 intensive arm participants with systolic BP >120 mm Hg at the 12-month visit (mean age, 69.6 years; 35.2% female, 28.8% non-Hispanic Black), TI occurred in 50.8% of participants. Participants with low adherence (versus high) were younger and more likely to be non-Hispanic Black or smokers. The prevalence of TI among patients with low, medium, and high adherence was 45.0%, 53.5%, and 50.4%, respectively. After adjustment, neither low nor medium adherence (versus high) were associated with TI (PR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.87-1.42]; PR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.84-1.38], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinician uncertainty about adherence is often cited as a reason for why antihypertensive intensification is withheld when above BP goals, we observed no evidence of an association between self-reported adherence and TI.

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.

Design and Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Hypertension Management Application

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure affects approximately 116 million adults in the United States. It is the leading risk factor for death and disability across the world. Unfortunately, over the past decade, hypertension control rates have decreased across the United States. Prediction models and clinical studies have shown that reducing clinician inertia alone is sufficient to reach the target of ≥80% blood pressure control. Digital health tools containing evidence-based algorithms that are able to reduce clinician inertia are a good fit for turning the tide in blood pressure control, but careful consideration should be taken in the design process to integrate digital health interventions into the clinical workflow.

METHODS

We describe the development of a provider-facing hypertension management platform. We enumerate key steps of the development process, including needs finding, clinical workflow analysis, treatment algorithm creation, platform design and electronic health record integration. We interviewed and surveyed 5 Stanford clinicians from primary care, cardiology, and their clinical care team members (including nurses, advanced practice providers, medical assistants) to identify needs and break down the steps of clinician workflow analysis. The application design and development stage were aided by a team of approximately 15 specialists in the fields of primary care, hypertension, bioinformatics, and software development.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital monitoring holds immense potential for revolutionizing chronic disease management. Our team developed a hypertension management platform at an academic medical center to address some of the top barriers to adoption and achieving clinical outcomes. The frameworks and processes described in this article may be used for the development of a diverse range of digital health tools in the cardiovascular space.

Lost in Translation: Why Are Rates of Hypertension Control Getting Worse Over Time?

Treatment of hypertension to decrease rates of cardiovascular disease is the most well studied and most broadly applicable treatment in cardiovascular prevention. Blood pressure can be measured anywhere, not just in a physician's office; medications are readily available, inexpensive, and have highly favorable benefit/harm ratios with relatively minimal side effects; and stepped medication regimens can be prescribed in algorithmic fashion by a variety of practitioners. Yet overall hypertension control rates in the United States have never exceeded 60%, and the last 5-10 years have seen decreased, rather than increased, rates of control. Here, I describe the scale of this massive failure to deliver on the promise of preventive hypertension care; outline the populations most affected and the contemporaneous events that have impacted hypertension control; discuss the disparate paths of hypertension science and health care delivery; and highlight novel interventions, approaches, and future opportunities to bend the curve back toward improvements in hypertension control.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial treatment with single-pill combination antihypertensive medications

Hypertension guidelines recommend initiating treatment with single pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive medications, but SPCs are used by only one-third of treated hypertensive US adults. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with SPC dual antihypertensive medications compared with usual care monotherapy in hypertensive US adults.The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model simulated initial SPC dual therapy (two half-standard doses in a single pill) compared with initial usual care monotherapy (half-standard dose when baseline systolic BP < 20 mmHg above goal and one standard dose when ≥20 mmHg above goal). Secondary analyses examined equivalent dose monotherapy (one standard dose) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (two half-standard doses). The primary outcomes were direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 10 years from a US healthcare sector perspective.At 10 years, initial dual drug SPC was projected to yield 0.028 (95%UI 0.008 to 0.051) more QALYs at no greater cost ($73, 95%UI -$1 983 to $1 629) than usual care monotherapy. In secondary analysis, SPC dual therapy was cost-effective vs. equivalent dose monotherapy (ICER $8 000/QALY gained) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (ICER $57 000/QALY gained). At average drug prices, initiating antihypertensive treatment with SPC dual therapy is more effective at no greater cost than usual care initial monotherapy and has the potential to improve BP control rates and reduce the burden of CVD in the US.

Antihypertensive Medication Regimens Used by US Adults With Hypertension and the Potential for Fixed-Dose Combination Products: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2020

Background Fixed-dose combination (FDC) antihypertensive products improve blood pressure control and adherence among patients with hypertension. It is unknown to what degree commercially available FDC products meet the current hypertension management prescription patterns in the United States. Methods and Results This cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to March 2020 included participants with hypertension taking ≥2 antihypertensive medications (N=2451). After constructing each participant's regimen according to antihypertensive classes used, we estimated the extent to which the 7 class-level FDC regimens available in the United States as of January 2023 would match the regimens used. Among a weighted population of 34.1 million US adults (mean age, 66.0 years; 52.8% women; 69.1% non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity), the proportions using 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 antihypertensive classes were 60.6%, 28.2%, 9.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The 7 FDC regimens were among 189 total regimens used (3.7%), and 39.2% of the population used one of the FDC regimens (95% CI, 35.5%-43.0%; 13.4 million US adults); 60.8% of the population (95% CI, 57.0%-64.5%; 20.7 million US adults) were using a regimen not available as a class-equivalent FDC product. Conclusions Three in 5 US adults with hypertension taking ≥2 antihypertensive classes are using a regimen that is not commercially available as a class-equivalent FDC product as of January 2023. To maximize the potential benefit of FDCs to improve medication adherence (and thus blood pressure control) among patients taking multiple antihypertensive medications, use of FDC-compatible regimens and improvements in the product landscape are needed.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Team-Based Care for Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis and Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Team-based care (TBC), a team of ≥2 healthcare professionals working collaboratively toward a shared clinical goal, is a recommended strategy to manage blood pressure (BP). However, the most effective and cost-effective TBC strategy is unknown.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of clinical trials in US adults (aged ≥20 years) with uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg) was performed to estimate the systolic BP reduction for TBC strategies versus usual care at 12 months. TBC strategies were stratified by the inclusion of a nonphysician team member who could titrate antihypertensive medications. The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model was used to project the expected BP reductions out to 10 years and simulate cardiovascular disease events, direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years, and cost-effectiveness of TBC with physician and nonphysician titration.

RESULTS

Among 19 studies comprising 5993 participants, the 12-month systolic BP change versus usual care was -5.0 (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.2) mm Hg for TBC with physician titration and -10.5 (-16.2 to -4.8) mm Hg for TBC with nonphysician titration. Relative to usual care at 10 years, TBC with nonphysician titration was estimated to cost $95 (95% uncertainty interval, -$563 to $664) more per patient and gain 0.022 (0.003-0.042) quality-adjusted life years, costing $4400/quality-adjusted life year gained. TBC with physician titration was estimated to cost more and gain fewer quality-adjusted life years than TBC with nonphysician titration.

CONCLUSIONS

TBC with nonphysician titration yields superior hypertension outcomes compared with other strategies and is a cost-effective way to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality in the United States.

Long-term Outcomes of a 1-year Hypertension Quality Improvement Initiative in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

Understanding whether practices retain outcomes attained during a quality improvement (QI) initiative can inform resource allocation.

OBJECTIVE

We report blood pressure (BP) control and medication intensification in the 3 years after a 2016 QI initiative ended.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SUBJECTS

Adults with a diagnosis of hypertension who had a primary care visit in a large-integrated health system between 2015 and 2019.

MEASURES

We report BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) at the last reading of each year. We used a multilevel regression to identify the adjusted propensity to receive medication intensification among patients with an elevated BP in the first half of the year. To examine variation, we identified the average predicted probability of control for each practice. Finally, we grouped practices by the proportion of their patients whose BP was controlled in 2016: lowest performing (<75%), middle (≥75%-<85%), and highest performing (≥85%).

RESULTS

The dataset contained 184,981 patients. From 2015 to 2019, the percentage of patients in control increased from 74% to 82%. In 2015, 38% of patients with elevated BP received medication intensification. This increased to 44% in 2016 and 50% in 2019. Practices varied in average BP control (from 62% to 91% in 2016 and 68% to 90% in 2019). All but one practice had a substantial increase from 2015 to 2016. Most maintained the gains through 2019. Higher-performing practices were more likely to intensify medications than lower-performing practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Most practices maintained gains 3 years after the QI program ended. Low-performing practices should be the focus of QI programs.

Randomized trial protocol for remote monitoring for equity in advancing the control of hypertension in safety net systems (REACH-SNS) study

BACKGROUND

Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is essential to effective management of hypertension. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of SMBP that leverages: cellular-enabled home BP monitors without a need for Wi-Fi or Bluetooth; simple communication modalities such as text messaging to support patient engagement; and integration into existing team-based workflows in safety-net clinics.

METHODS

This study will be conducted with patients in San Francisco who are treated within a network of safety-net clinics. English and Spanish-speaking patients with diagnosed hypertension will be eligible for the trial if they have recent BP readings ≥140/90 mmHg and do not have co-morbid conditions that make home BP monitoring more complex to manage. This study will implement a three-arm randomized controlled trial to compare varying levels of implementation support: 1) cellular-enabled BP monitors (with minimal implementation support), 2) cellular-enabled BP monitors with protocol-based implementation support (text reminders for patients; aggregated BP summaries sent to primary care providers), and 3) cellular-enabled BP monitors and pharmacist-led support (pharmacist coaching and independent medication adjustments).

RESULTS

For the main analysis, we will use mixed effects linear regression to compare the change in primary outcome of systolic BP. Secondary outcomes include BP control (<140/90 mmHg), medication intensification, patient-reported outcomes, and implementation processes (i.e., engagement with the intervention).

DISCUSSION

This study will design and test a digital health intervention for use in marginalized populations treated within safety net settings, evaluating both effectiveness and implementation to advance more equitable health outcomes.

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

Improvement in Hypertension Control Among Adults Seen in Federally Qualified Health Center Clinics in the Stroke Belt: Implementing a Program with a Dashboard and Process Metrics

Objective

Attain 75% hypertension (HTN) control and improve racial equity in control with the American Medical Association Measure accurately, Act rapidly, Partner with patients blood pressure (AMA MAP BP™) quality improvement program, including a monthly dashboard and practice facilitation.

Methods

Eight federally qualified health center clinics from the HopeHealth network in South Carolina participated. Clinic staff received monthly practice facilitation guided by a dashboard with process metrics (measure [repeat BP when initial systolic ≥140 or diastolic ≥90 mmHg; Act [number antihypertensive medication classes prescribed at standard dose or greater to adults with uncontrolled BP]; Partner [follow-up within 30 days of uncontrolled BP; systolic BP fall after medication added]) and outcome metric (BP <140/<90). Electronic health record data were obtained on adults ≥18 years at baseline and monthly during MAP BP. Patients with diagnosed HTN, ≥1 encounter at baseline, and ≥2 encounters during 6 months of MAP BP were included in this evaluation.

Results

Among 45,498 adults with encounters during the 1-year baseline, 20,963 (46.1%) had diagnosed HTN; 12,370 (59%) met the inclusion criteria (67% black, 29% white; mean (standard deviation) age 59.5 (12.8) years; 16.3% uninsured. HTN control improved (63.6% vs. 75.1%, p<0.0001), reflecting positive changes in Measure, Act, and Partner metrics (all p<0.001), although control remained lower in non-Hispanic black than in non-Hispanic white adults (73.8% vs. 78.4%, p<0.001).

Conclusions

With MAP BP, the HTN control goal was attained among adults eligible for analysis. Ongoing efforts aim to improve program access and racial equity in control.

Association of Baseline Adherence to Antihypertensive Medications With Adherence After Shelter-in-Place Guidance for COVID-19 Among US Adults

IMPORTANCE

Adherence to selected antihypertensive medications (proportion of days covered [PDC]) declined after guidance to shelter in place for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether PDC for all antihypertensive medications collectively fell from the 6 months before sheltering guidance (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020 [baseline]) compared with the first (March 15 to June 14, 2020) and second (June 15 to September 14, 2020) 3 months of sheltering and to assess the usefulness of baseline PDC for identifying individuals at risk for declining PDC during sheltering.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included a random sample of US adults obtained from EagleForce Health, a division of EagleForce Associates Inc. Approximately one-half of the adults were aged 40 to 64 years and one-half were aged 65 to 90 years, with prescription drug coverage, hypertension, and at least 1 antihypertensive medication prescription filled at a retail pharmacy during baseline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prescription claims were used to assess (1) PDC at baseline and changes in PDC during the first and second 3 months of sheltering and (2) the association of good (PDC ≥ 80), fair (PDC 50-79), and poor (PDC < 50) baseline adherence with adherence during sheltering.

RESULTS

A total of 27 318 adults met inclusion criteria (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.7] years; 50.7% women). Mean PDC declined from baseline (65.6 [95% CI, 65.2-65.9]) during the first (63.4 [95% CI, 63.0-63.8]) and second (58.9 [95% CI, 58.5-59.3]) 3 months after sheltering in all adults combined (P < .001 for both comparisons) and both age groups separately. Good, fair, and poor baseline adherence was observed in 40.0%, 27.8%, and 32.2% of adults, respectively. During the last 3 months of sheltering, PDC declined more from baseline in those with good compared with fair baseline adherence (-13.1 [95% CI, -13.6 to -12.6] vs -8.3 [95% CI, -13.6 to -12.6]; P < .001), whereas mean (SD) PDC increased in those with poor baseline adherence (mean PDC, 31.6 [95% CI, 31.3-31.9] vs 34.4 [95% CI, 33.8-35.0]; P < .001). However, poor adherence during sheltering occurred in 1034 adults (9.5%) with good baseline adherence, 2395 (31.6%) with fair baseline adherence, and 6409 (72.9%) with poor baseline adherence.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that individuals with poor baseline adherence are candidates for adherence-promoting interventions irrespective of sheltering guidance. Interventions to prevent poor adherence during sheltering may be more useful for individuals with fair vs good baseline adherence.

Reach in a pragmatic hypertension trial: A critical RE-AIM component

BACKGROUND

Hypertension control is falling in the US yet efficacious interventions exist. Poor patient reach has limited the ability of pragmatic trials to demonstrate effectiveness. This paper uses quantitative and qualitative data to understand factors influencing reach in Hyperlink 3, a pragmatic hypertension trial testing an efficacious pharmacist-led Telehealth Care intervention in comparison to a physician-led Clinic-based Care intervention. Referrals to both interventions were ordered by physicians.

METHODS

A sequential-explanatory mixed methods approach was used to understand barriers and facilitators to reach. Reach was assessed quantitatively using EHR data, defined as the proportion of eligible patients attending intended follow-up hypertension care and qualitatively, via semi-structured interviews with patients who were and were not reached. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed via combined deductive and inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Of those eligible, 27% of Clinic-based (n = 532/1945) and 21% of Telehealth patients (n = 385/1849) were reached. In both arms, the largest drop was between physician-signed orders and patients attending initial intended follow-up care. Qualitative analyses uncovered patient barriers related to motivation, capability, and opportunity to attend follow-up care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the proportion of eligible patients with signed orders was high in both arms, the proportion ultimately reached was lower. Patients described barriers related to the influence of one's own personal beliefs or priorities, decision making processes, logistics, and patient perceptions on physician involvement on reach. Addressing these barriers in the design of pragmatic interventions is critical for future effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02996565.

[Drivers and scorecards to improve hypertension control in primary care practice: Recommendations from the HEARTS in the Americas Innovation GroupFactores impulsores y métodos de puntuación para mejorar el control de la hipertensión en la práctica clínica de la atención primaria: recomendaciones del grupo de innovación de HEARTS en las Américas]

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the Americas, and hypertension is the most significant modifiable risk factor. However, hypertension control rates remain low, and CVD mortality is stagnant or rising after decades of continuing reduction. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the HEARTS technical package to improve hypertension control. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) designed the HEARTS in the Americas Initiative to improve CVD risk management, emphasizing hypertension control, to date implemented in 21 countries.

Methods

To advance implementation, an interdisciplinary group of practitioners was engaged to select the key evidence-based drivers of hypertension control and to design a comprehensive scorecard to monitor their implementation at primary care health facilities (PHC). The group studied high-performing health systems that achieve high hypertension control through quality improvement programs focusing on specific process measures, with regular feedback to providers at health facilities.

Findings

The final selected eight drivers were categorized into five main domains: (1) diagnosis (blood pressure measurement accuracy and CVD risk evaluation); (2) treatment (standardized treatment protocol and treatment intensification); (3) continuity of care and follow-up; (4) delivery system (team-based care, medication refill), and (5) system for performance evaluation. The drivers and recommendations were then translated into process measures, resulting in two interconnected scorecards integrated into the HEARTS in the Americas monitoring and evaluation system.

Interpretation

Focus on these key hypertension drivers and resulting scorecards, will guide the quality improvement process to achieve population control goals at the participating health centers in HEARTS implementing countries.

[Drivers and scorecards to improve hypertension control in primary care practice: Recommendations from the HEARTS in the Americas Innovation GroupFatores impulsionadores e scorecards para melhorar o controle da hipertensão arterial na atenção primária: recomendações do Grupo de Inovação da Iniciativa HEARTS nas Américas]

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the Americas, and hypertension is the most significant modifiable risk factor. However, hypertension control rates remain low, and CVD mortality is stagnant or rising after decades of continuing reduction. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the HEARTS technical package to improve hypertension control. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) designed the HEARTS in the Americas Initiative to improve CVD risk management, emphasizing hypertension control, to date implemented in 21 countries.

Methods

To advance implementation, an interdisciplinary group of practitioners was engaged to select the key evidence-based drivers of hypertension control and to design a comprehensive scorecard to monitor their implementation at primary care health facilities (PHC). The group studied high-performing health systems that achieve high hypertension control through quality improvement programs focusing on specific process measures, with regular feedback to providers at health facilities.

Findings

The final selected eight drivers were categorized into five main domains: (1) diagnosis (blood pressure measurement accuracy and CVD risk evaluation); (2) treatment (standardized treatment protocol and treatment intensification); (3) continuity of care and follow-up; (4) delivery system (team-based care, medication refill), and (5) system for performance evaluation. The drivers and recommendations were then translated into process measures, resulting in two interconnected scorecards integrated into the HEARTS in the Americas monitoring and evaluation system.

Interpretation

Focus on these key hypertension drivers and resulting scorecards, will guide the quality improvement process to achieve population control goals at the participating health centers in HEARTS implementing countries.

Drivers and scorecards to improve hypertension control in primary care practice: Recommendations from the HEARTS in the Americas Innovation Group

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the Americas, and hypertension is the most significant modifiable risk factor. However, hypertension control rates remain low, and CVD mortality is stagnant or rising after decades of continuing reduction. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the HEARTS technical package to improve hypertension control. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) designed the HEARTS in the Americas Initiative to improve CVD risk management, emphasizing hypertension control, to date implemented in 21 countries.

Methods

To advance implementation, an interdisciplinary group of practitioners was engaged to select the key evidence-based drivers of hypertension control and to design a comprehensive scorecard to monitor their implementation at primary care health facilities (PHC). The group studied high-performing health systems that achieve high hypertension control through quality improvement programs focusing on specific process measures, with regular feedback to providers at health facilities.

Findings

The final selected eight drivers were categorized into five main domains: (1) diagnosis (blood pressure measurement accuracy and CVD risk evaluation); (2) treatment (standardized treatment protocol and treatment intensification); (3) continuity of care and follow-up; (4) delivery system (team-based care, medication refill), and (5) system for performance evaluation. The drivers and recommendations were then translated into process measures, resulting in two interconnected scorecards integrated into the HEARTS in the Americas monitoring and evaluation system.

Interpretation

Focus on these key hypertension drivers and resulting scorecards, will guide the quality improvement process to achieve population control goals at the participating health centers in HEARTS implementing countries.

Funding

No funding to declare.

Cardiovascular Disease Preventive Services Among Smaller Primary Care Practices

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease preventive services (aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support) are crucial to controlling cardiovascular diseases. This study draws from 1,248 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices participating in the EvidenceNOW Initiative from 2015-2016 across 12 states to provide practice-level aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support estimates; report the percentage of practices that meet Million Hearts targets; and identify the practice characteristics associated with better performance.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized linear regression modeling (analyzed in 2020-2021) to examine the association of aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance with practice characteristics that included structural attributes (e.g., size, ownership, rurality), practice capacity and contextual characteristics, health information technology, and patient panel demographics.

RESULTS

On average, practice performance on aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality measures was 64% for aspirin, 63% for blood pressure, and 62% for smoking-cessation support. The 2012 Million Hearts goal of achieving the rates of 70% was achieved by 52% (aspirin), 32% (blood pressure), and 54% (smoking) of practices. Practice characteristics associated with aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance included ownership (hospital/health system-owned practices had 11% higher aspirin performance than clinician-owned practices [p=0.001]), rurality (rural practices had lower performance than urban practices in all aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality metrics [difference in aspirin=11.1%, p=0.001; blood pressure=4.2%, p=0.022; smoking=14.4%, p=0.009]), and disruptions (practices that experienced >1 major disruption showed lower aspirin performance [-7.1%, p<0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving the Million Hearts targets may be assisted by collecting and reporting practice-level performance, which can promote change at the practice level and identify areas where additional support is needed to achieve initiative goals.

Blood Pressure Control Among Non-Hispanic Black Adults Is Lower Than Non-Hispanic White Adults Despite Similar Treatment With Antihypertensive Medication: NHANES 2013-2018

BACKGROUND

Controlled blood pressure can prevent or reduce adverse health outcomes. Social and structural determinants may contribute to the disparity that despite equivalent proportions on antihypertensive medication, non-Hispanic Black (Black) adults have lower blood pressure control and more cardiovascular events than non-Hispanic White (White) adults.

METHODS

Data from 2013 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were pooled to assess control among Black and White adults by antihypertensive medication use and selected characteristics using the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Blood Pressure Guideline definition (systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg) among 4,739 adults.

RESULTS

Among those treated with antihypertensive medication, an estimated 34.9% of Black and 45.0% of White adults had controlled blood pressure. Control was lower for Black and White adults among most subgroups of age, sex, education, insurance status, usual source of care, and poverty-income ratio. Black adults had higher use of diuretics (28.5%-Black adults vs. 23.5%-White adults) and calcium channel blockers (24.2%-Black adults vs. 14.7%-White adults) compared with White adults. Control among Black adults was lower than White adults across all medication classes including diuretics (36.1%-Black adults vs. 47.3%-White adults), calcium channel blockers (30.2%-Black adults vs. 40.1%-White adults), and number of medication classes used.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal blood pressure control rates and disparities warrant increased efforts to improve control, which could include addressing social and structural determinants along with emphasizing implementation of the 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Guideline into clinical practice.

Long-Term Secondary Prevention: Management of Blood Pressure After a Transient Ischemic Attack or Stroke

Reducing blood pressure (BP) is a highly effective strategy for long-term stroke prevention. Despite overwhelmingly clear evidence from randomized trials that antihypertensive therapy substantially reduces the risk of stroke in primary prevention, uncertainty still surrounds the issue of BP lowering after cerebrovascular events, and the risk of recurrent stroke, coronary events, and vascular death remains significant. Important questions in a secondary prevention setting include should everyone be treated regardless of their poststroke BP, how soon after a stroke should BP-lowering treatment be commenced, how intensively should BP be lowered, what drugs are best, and how should long-term BP control be optimized and monitored. We review the evidence on BP control after a transient ischemic attack or stroke to address these unanswered questions and draw attention to some recent developments that hold promise to improve management of BP in current practice.

Cost-Effectiveness of Recommendations From the Surgeon General's Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension

In response to high prevalence of hypertension and suboptimal rates of blood pressure (BP) control in the United States, the Surgeon General released a Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension (Call-to-Action) in the fall of 2020 to address the negative consequences of uncontrolled BP. In addition to morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, hypertension has an annual cost to the US healthcare system of $71 billion. The Call-to-Action makes recommendations for improving BP control, and the purpose of this review was to summarize the literature on the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. We identified a number of studies that demonstrate the cost saving or cost-effectiveness of recommendations in the Call-to-Action including strategies to promote access to and availability of physical activity opportunities and healthy food options within communities, advance the use of standardized treatment approaches and guideline-recommended care, to promote the use of healthcare teams to manage hypertension, and to empower and equip patients to use self-measured BP monitoring and medication adherence strategies. While the current review identified numerous cost-effective methods to achieve the Surgeon General's recommendations for improving BP control, future work should determine the cost-effectiveness of the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Hypertension guidelines, interventions to lower therapeutic inertia, and optimal team-based care strategies, among other areas of research. Economic evaluation studies should also be prioritized to generate more comprehensive data on how to provide efficient and high value care to improve BP control.

Association of Differences in Treatment Intensification, Missed Visits, and Scheduled Follow-up Interval With Racial or Ethnic Disparities in Blood Pressure Control

Importance

Black patients with hypertension often have the lowest rates of blood pressure (BP) control in clinical settings. It is unknown to what extent variation in health care processes explains this disparity.

Objective

To assess whether and to what extent treatment intensification, scheduled follow-up interval, and missed visits are associated with racial and ethnic disparities in BP control.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, nested logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of BP control (defined as a systolic BP [SBP] level <140 mm Hg) by race and ethnicity, and a structural equation model was used to assess the association of treatment intensification, scheduled follow-up interval, and missed visits with racial and ethnic disparities in BP control. The study included 16 114 adults aged 20 years or older with hypertension and elevated BP (defined as an SBP level ≥140 mm Hg) during at least 1 clinic visit between January 1, 2015, and November 15, 2017. A total of 11 safety-net clinics within the San Francisco Health Network participated in the study. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to October 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Blood pressure control was assessed using the patient's most recent BP measurement as of November 15, 2017. Treatment intensification was calculated using the standard-based method, scored on a scale from -1.0 to 1.0, with -1.0 being the least amount of intensification and 1.0 being the most. Scheduled follow-up interval was defined as the mean number of days to the next scheduled visit after an elevated BP measurement. Missed visits measured the number of patients who did not show up for visits during the 4 weeks after an elevated BP measurement.

Results

Among 16 114 adults with hypertension, the mean (SD) age was 58.6 (12.1) years, and 8098 patients (50.3%) were female. A total of 4658 patients (28.9%) were Asian, 3743 (23.2%) were Black, 3694 (22.9%) were Latinx, 2906 (18.0%) were White, and 1113 (6.9%) were of other races or ethnicities (including American Indian or Alaska Native [77 patients (0.4%)], Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander [217 patients (1.3%)], and unknown [819 patients (5.1%)]). Compared with patients from all racial and ethnic groups, Black patients had lower treatment intensification scores (mean [SD], -0.33 [0.26] vs -0.29 [0.25]; β = -0.03, P < .001) and missed more visits (mean [SD], 0.8 [1.5] visits vs 0.4 [1.1] visits; β = 0.35; P < .001). In contrast, Asian patients had higher treatment intensification scores (mean [SD], -0.26 [0.23]; β = 0.02; P < .001) and fewer missed visits (mean [SD], 0.2 [0.7] visits; β = -0.20; P < .001). Black patients were less likely (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P < .001) and Asian patients were more likely (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P < .001) to achieve BP control than patients from all racial or ethnic groups. Treatment intensification and missed visits accounted for 21% and 14%, respectively, of the total difference in BP control among Black patients and 26% and 13% of the difference among Asian patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's findings suggest that racial and ethnic inequities in treatment intensification may be associated with more than 20% of observed racial or ethnic disparities in BP control, and racial and ethnic differences in visit attendance may also play a role. Ensuring more equitable provision of treatment intensification could be a beneficial health care strategy to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in BP control.

Analysis of Therapeutic Inertia and Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Therapeutic inertia may contribute to racial and ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) control.

Objective

To determine the association between race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was a secondary analysis of data from SPRINT, a randomized clinical trial comparing intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP treatment goals. Participants were enrolled between November 8, 2010, and March 15, 2013, with a median follow-up 3.26 years. Participants included adults aged 50 years or older at high risk for cardiovascular disease but without diabetes, previous stroke, or heart failure. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured BP above the target goal. Analyses for the present study were performed in from October 2020 through March 2021.

Exposures

Self-reported race and ethnicity, mutually exclusively categorized into groups of Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White participants.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Therapeutic inertia, defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the BP was above target goal. The association between self-reported race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia was estimated using generalized estimating equations and stratified by treatment group. Antihypertensive medication use was assessed with pill bottle inventories at each visit. Blood pressure was measured using an automated device.

Results

A total of 8556 participants, including 4141 in the standard group (22 844 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1467 women [35.4%]) and 4415 in the intensive group (35 453 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1584 women [35.9%]) with at least 1 eligible study visit were included in the present analysis. Among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic participants, the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia in the standard vs intensive groups was 59.8% (95% CI, 58.9%-60.7%) vs 56.0% (95% CI, 55.2%-56.7%), 56.8% (95% CI, 54.4%-59.2%) vs 54.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-56.6%), and 59.7% (95% CI, 56.5%-63.0%) vs 51.0% (95% CI, 47.4%-54.5%), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios in the standard and intensive groups for therapeutic inertia associated with non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White participants were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for therapeutic inertia comparing Hispanic vs non-Hispanic White participants were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90-1.13) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00) in the standard and intensive groups, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among SPRINT participants above BP target goal, this cross-sectional study found that therapeutic inertia prevalence was similar or lower for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants compared with non-Hispanic White participants. These findings suggest that a standardized approach to BP management, as used in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in hypertension.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062.

Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Control: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The widespread treatment of hypertension and resultant improvement in blood pressure have been major contributors to the dramatic age-specific decline in heart disease and stroke. Despite this progress, a persistent gap remains between stated public health targets and achieved blood pressure control rates. Many factors may be important contributors to the gap between population hypertension control goals and currently observed control levels. Among them is the extent to which patients adhere to prescribed treatment. The goal of this scientific statement is to summarize the current state of knowledge of the contribution of medication nonadherence to the national prevalence of poor blood pressure control, methods for measuring medication adherence and their associated challenges, risk factors for antihypertensive medication nonadherence, and strategies for improving adherence to antihypertensive medications at both the individual and health system levels.

Associations of High-Sensitivity Troponin and Natriuretic Peptide Levels With Outcomes After Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering: Findings From the SPRINT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hscTnT) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) levels are associated with risk of heart failure (HF) and mortality among individuals in the general population. However, it is unknown if this risk is modifiable.

Objective

To test the hypothesis that elevated hscTnT and NTproBNP levels would identify individuals with the greatest risk for mortality and HF and the largest benefit associated with intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a nonprespecified post hoc analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), conducted from October 20, 2010, to August 20, 2015. A total of 9361 patients without diabetes with increased risk for cardiovascular disease were randomized to receive intensive vs standard SBP lowering. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis from September 30, 2019, to July 29, 2021.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to undergo intensive (<120 mm Hg) or standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and NTproBNP levels were measured from stored specimens collected at enrollment, with elevated levels defined as 14 ng/L or more for hscTnT (to convert to micrograms per liter, multiply by 0.001) and 125 pg/mL or more for NTproBNP (to convert to nanograms per liter, multiply by 1.0).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome of this ancillary study was HF and mortality.

Results

Of the 9361 participants enrolled in SPRINT, 8828 (5578 men [63.2%]; mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.5] years) had measured hscTnT levels and 8836 (5585 men [63.2%]; mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.5] years) had measured NTproBNP levels; 2262 of 8828 patients (25.6%) had elevated hscTnT levels, 3371 of 8836 patients (38.2%) had elevated NTproBNP, and 1411 of 8828 patients (16.0%) had both levels elevated. Randomization to the intensive SBP group led to a 4.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-7.5%) absolute risk reduction (ARR) over 4 years in death and HF (421 events) for those with elevated hscTnT and a 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.5%) ARR for those without elevated levels. Similarly, for those with elevated NTproBNP, the ARR for death and HF over 4 years was 4.6% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.5%) vs 1.8% (95% CI, 0.9%-2.5%) in those without elevated levels. For those with elevated levels of both biomarkers, the ARR for death and HF over 4 years was 7.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.3%) vs 1.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.3%) in those with neither biomarker elevated. No significant treatment group by biomarker category interactions were detected.

Conclusions and Relevance

Intensive SBP control led to large absolute differences in death and HF among patients with abnormal hscTnT and NTproBNP levels. These findings demonstrate that risk associated with elevation of these biomarkers is modifiable with intensive BP control. A prospective, randomized clinical trial is needed to evaluate whether these biomarkers may help guide selection of patients for intensive SBP lowering.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Self-Reported Antihypertensive Medication Class and Temporal Relationship to Treatment Guidelines

The greater antihypertensive responses to initial therapy with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or thiazide-type diuretics than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults was recognized in the US High BP guidelines from 1988 to 2003. The 2014 Report from Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (2014 aJNC8 Report) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline were the first to recommend CCBs or thiazide-type diuretics rather than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in NHB. We assessed the temporal relationship of these recommendations on self-reported CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy by NHB and NHW adults with hypertension absent compelling indications for β-blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2018 versus 2007 to 2012 (after versus before 2014 aJNC8 Report). CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy was unchanged in NHW adults (17.1% versus 18.1%, P=0.711) and insignificantly higher after 2014 among NHB adults (43.7% versus 38.2%, P=0.204), although CCB monotherapy increased (29.5% versus 21.0%, P=0.021) and renin-angiotensin system blocker monotherapy fell (44.5% versus 31.0%, P=0.008). Although evidence-based CCB monotherapy increased among NHB adults in 2015 to 2018, hypertension control declined as untreated hypertension and monotherapy increased. While a gap between recommended and actual monotherapy persists, evidence-based monotherapy appears insufficient to improve hypertension control in NHB adults, especially given evidence for worsening therapeutic inertia. Initiating treatment with single-pill combinations and timely therapeutic intensification when required to control hypertension are evidence-based, race-neutral options for improving hypertension control among NHB adults.

Reasons for Uncontrolled Blood Pressure Among US Adults: Data From the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

[Figure: see text].

Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment by Pharmacists in Black Barbershops

BACKGROUND

In LABBPS (Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study), pharmacist-led hypertension care in Los Angeles County Black-owned barbershops significantly improved blood pressure control in non-Hispanic Black men with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline. In this analysis, 10-year health outcomes and health care costs of 1 year of the LABBPS intervention versus control are projected.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes projected blood pressure, medication-related adverse events, fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and noncardiovascular disease death in LABBPS participants. Program costs, total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for the LABBPS intervention and control arms from a health care sector perspective over a 10-year horizon. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. High and intermediate cost-effectiveness thresholds were defined as <$50 000 and <$150 000 per QALY gained, respectively.

RESULTS

At 10 years, the intervention was projected to cost an average of $2356 (95% uncertainty interval, -$264 to $4611) more per participant than the control arm and gain 0.06 (95% uncertainty interval, 0.01-0.10) QALYs. The LABBPS intervention was highly cost-effective, with a mean cost of $42 717 per QALY gained (58% probability of being highly and 96% of being at least intermediately cost-effective). Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162 per QALY gained. The LABBPS intervention would be only intermediately cost-effective if pharmacists were less likely to intensify antihypertensive medications when systolic blood pressure was ≥150 mm Hg or if pharmacist weekly time driving to barbershops increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension care delivered by clinical pharmacists in Black barbershops is a highly cost-effective way to improve blood pressure control in Black men.

Impact of a preventive cardiology clinic focusing on lifestyle and nutrition counseling: A pilot analysis

Standard cardiology practice often defers preventive strategies to primary care providers. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a preventive cardiology clinic focused on lifestyle and nutrition counseling combined with guideline-directed medical therapy on reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We queried the University of Florida-Health database for patients enrolled in the preventive cardiology clinic, and a general and interventional cardiology clinic from January 2016 to October 2019. Mean change in weight and blood cholesterol including LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TG) were compared in the three clinics in the initial cohort and stratified into primary and secondary prevention. A propensity score-matched analysis was done to adjust for CVD risk factors and statin use. Among a cohort of 239 patients, enrollment in the preventive clinic (n = 99) was associated with greater weight loss at 6 months compared to other clinics (n = 140) (mean -1.7 vs +0.1 kg, p 0.007). Preventive clinic was also associated with greater mean reduction in LDL-C (-24.8 vs -7.1 mg/dl, p 0.021), TC (-29.3 vs -2.0, p 0.003) and TG (-19.7 vs +13.3, p 0.002) at both initial and last follow-up (median time 6 and 16 months). The association with reduction in TG was observed in both primary and secondary prevention, but reduction in LDL-C and TC was only significant in secondary prevention. In a propensity-matched linear regression analysis, preventive clinic was independently associated with LDL-C reduction (b -14.7, r -0.3, p 0.038). A preventive cardiology clinic focused on patient education can be effective in reducing CVD risk.

Inequities in Hypertension Control in the United States Exposed and Exacerbated by COVID-19 and the Role of Home Blood Pressure and Virtual Health Care During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID‐19 pandemic is a public health crisis, having killed more than 514 000 US adults as of March 2, 2021. COVID‐19 mitigation strategies have unintended consequences on managing chronic conditions such as hypertension, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and health disparities in the United States. During the first wave of the pandemic in the United States, the combination of observed racial/ethnic inequities in COVID‐19 deaths and social unrest reinvigorated a national conversation about systemic racism in health care and society. The 4th Annual University of Utah Translational Hypertension Symposium gathered frontline clinicians, researchers, and leaders from diverse backgrounds to discuss the intersection of these 2 critical social and public health phenomena and to highlight preexisting disparities in hypertension treatment and control exacerbated by COVID‐19. The discussion underscored environmental and socioeconomic factors that are deeply embedded in US health care and research that impact inequities in hypertension. Structural racism plays a central role at both the health system and individual levels. At the same time, virtual healthcare platforms are being accelerated into widespread use by COVID‐19, which may widen the divide in healthcare access across levels of wealth, geography, and education. Blood pressure control rates are declining, especially among communities of color and those without health insurance or access to health care. Hypertension awareness, therapeutic lifestyle changes, and evidence‐based pharmacotherapy are essential. There is a need to improve the implementation of community‐based interventions and blood pressure self‐monitoring, which can help build patient trust and increase healthcare engagement.

Cost-Effectiveness of Improved Hypertension Management in India through Increased Treatment Coverage and Adherence: A Mathematical Modeling Study

Background:

Despite the availability of effective and affordable treatments, only 14% of hypertensive Indians have controlled blood pressure. Increased hypertension treatment coverage (the proportion of individuals initiated on treatment) and adherence (proportion of patients taking medicines as recommended) promise population health gains. However, governments and other payers will not invest in a large-scale hypertension control program unless it is both affordable and effective.

Objective:

To investigate if a national hypertension control intervention implemented across the private and public sector facilities in India could save overall costs of CVD prevention and treatment.

Methods:

We developed a discrete-time microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of population-level hypertension control intervention in India for combinations of treatment coverage and adherence targets. Input clinical parameters specific to India were obtained from large-scale surveys such as the Global Burden of Disease as well as local clinical trials. Input hypertensive medication cost parameters were based on government contracts. The model projected antihypertensive treatment costs, avoided CVD care costs, changes in disability-adjusted life year (DALYs) and incremental cost per DALY averted (represented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or ICER) over 20 years.

Results:

Over 20 years, at 70% coverage and adherence, the hypertension control intervention would avert 1.68% DALYs and be cost-saving overall. Increasing adherence (while keeping coverage constant) resulted in greater improvement in cost savings compared to increasing coverage (while keeping adherence constant). Results were most sensitive to the cost of antihypertensive medication, but the intervention remained highly cost-effective under all one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion:

A national hypertension control intervention in India would most likely be budget neutral or cost-saving if the intervention can achieve and maintain high levels of both treatment coverage and adherence.

Adherence to antihypertensive medication after referral to secondary healthcare: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Nonadherence (NAd) to antihypertensive medication is associated with lack of blood pressure control and worsened long-term outcomes. Increased access to a programme for high-risk cardiovascular patients has the potential to reduce NAd and improve clinical outcomes. We evaluated implementation NAd prevalence and risk factors among severely hypertensive patients after 12-month-long access to secondary healthcare centres.

METHODS

The Morisky Green Levine Scale (MGLS) was used to analyse antihypertensive medication NAd in a prospective cohort of 485 patients. Logistic regression models evaluated the influence of ecological model factors on NAd.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were female, had low health literacy, a low family income and a mean age of 61.8 ± 12.5 years. Prevalence of NAd fell from 57.1% at programme entry to 28.3% (P < .001) at the end of the study. After access to a secondary healthcare centre, we observed better blood pressure control, an increase in the number of pills/day and a higher number of antihypertensive medications. Predictive variables of NAd were age (OR 1.027; CI 1.003-1.051; P = .023), low health literacy (OR 1.987; CI 1.009-3.913; P = .047), systolic blood pressure (OR 1.010; CI 1.003-1.021; P = .049), dosages ≥ 2 times/day (OR 1.941; CI 1.091-3.451; P = .024) and patient satisfaction with the healthcare team (OR 0.711; IC 0.516-0.980; P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater access to health services is associated with a reduction in NAd to antihypertensive medication and better blood pressure control. NAd was correlated with modifiable variables such as treatment complexity and, for the first time, team satisfaction, suggesting that implementation of similar programmes may limit NAd in similar patient groups.

Trends in Blood Pressure Control Among US Adults With Hypertension, 1999-2000 to 2017-2018

IMPORTANCE

Controlling blood pressure (BP) reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether BP control among US adults with hypertension changed from 1999-2000 through 2017-2018.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Serial cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, weighted to be representative of US adults, between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018 (10 cycles), including 18 262 US adults aged 18 years or older with hypertension defined as systolic BP level of 140 mm Hg or higher, diastolic BP level of 90 mm Hg or higher, or use of antihypertensive medication. The date of final data collection was 2018.

EXPOSURES

Calendar year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mean BP was computed using 3 measurements. The primary outcome of BP control was defined as systolic BP level lower than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP level lower than 90 mm Hg.

RESULTS

Among the 51 761 participants included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age was 48 (19) years and 25 939 (50.1%) were women; 43.2% were non-Hispanic White adults; 21.6%, non-Hispanic Black adults; 5.3%, non-Hispanic Asian adults; and 26.1%, Hispanic adults. Among the 18 262 adults with hypertension, the age-adjusted estimated proportion with controlled BP increased from 31.8% (95% CI, 26.9%-36.7%) in 1999-2000 to 48.5% (95% CI, 45.5%-51.5%) in 2007-2008 (P < .001 for trend), remained stable and was 53.8% (95% CI, 48.7%-59.0%) in 2013-2014 (P = .14 for trend), and then declined to 43.7% (95% CI, 40.2%-47.2%) in 2017-2018 (P = .003 for trend). Compared with adults who were aged 18 years to 44 years, it was estimated that controlled BP was more likely among those aged 45 years to 64 years (49.7% vs 36.7%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.37]) and less likely among those aged 75 years or older (37.3% vs 36.7%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.65-0.97]). It was estimated that controlled BP was less likely among non-Hispanic Black adults vs non-Hispanic White adults (41.5% vs 48.2%, respectively; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). Controlled BP was more likely among those with private insurance (48.2%), Medicare (53.4%), or government health insurance other than Medicare or Medicaid (43.2%) vs among those without health insurance (24.2%) (multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08-1.80], 1.47 [95% CI, 1.15-1.89], and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.04-1.76], respectively). Controlled BP was more likely among those with vs those without a usual health care facility (48.4% vs 26.5%, respectively; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.13-1.94]) and among those who had vs those who had not had a health care visit in the past year (49.1% vs 8.0%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.23 [95% CI, 2.88-9.49]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In a series of cross-sectional surveys weighted to be representative of the adult US population, the prevalence of controlled BP increased between 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, did not significantly change from 2007-2008 through 2013-2014, and then decreased after 2013-2014.

Impact of Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure on Processes of Hypertension Care and Long-Term Blood Pressure Control

Background Self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) improves blood pressure (BP) outcomes at 12-months, but information is lacking on how SMBP affects hypertension care processes and longer-term BP outcomes. Methods and Results We pooled individual participant data from 4 randomized clinical trials of SMBP in the United Kingdom (combined n=2590) with varying intensities of support. Multivariable random effects regression was used to estimate the probability of antihypertensive intensification at 12 months for usual care versus SMBP. Using these data, we simulated 5-year BP control rates using a validated mathematical model. Trial participants were mostly older adults (mean age 66.6 years, SD 9.5), male (53.9%), and predominantly white (95.6%); mean baseline BP was 151.8/85.0 mm Hg. Compared with usual care, the likelihood of antihypertensive intensification increased with both SMBP with feedback to patient or provider alone (odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6) and with telemonitoring or self-management (3.3, 2.5-4.2). Over 5 years, we estimated 33.4% BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) with usual care (95% uncertainty interval 27.7%-39.4%). One year of SMBP with feedback to patient or provider alone achieved 33.9% (28.3%-40.3%) BP control and SMBP with telemonitoring or self-management 39.0% (33.1%-45.2%) over 5 years. If SMBP interventions and associated BP control processes were extended to 5 years, BP control increased to 52.4% (45.4%-59.8 %) and 72.1% (66.5%-77.6%), respectively. Conclusions One year of SMBP plus telemonitoring or self-management increases the likelihood of antihypertensive intensification and could improve BP control rates at 5 years; continuing SMBP for 5 years could further improve BP control.

The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory: A Platform for Surveillance and Efficient Trials

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) is a leading preventable cause of death that remains common in the US population despite the availability of effective medications. New technology and program innovation has high potential to improve BP but may be expensive and burdensome for patients, clinicians, health systems, and payers and may not produce desired results or reduce existing disparities in BP control.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is a platform designed to enable national surveillance and facilitate quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research. The platform uses PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, for engagement of health systems and collection of electronic health record data, and the Eureka Research Platform for eConsent and collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. Three demonstration projects are underway: BP track will conduct national surveillance of BP control and related clinical processes by measuring theory-derived pragmatic BP control metrics using electronic health record data, with a focus on tracking disparities over time; BP MAP will conduct a cluster-randomized trial comparing effectiveness of 2 versions of a BP control quality improvement program; BP Home will conduct an individual patient-level randomized trial comparing effectiveness of smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring. Thus far, BP Track has collected electronic health record data from over 826 000 eligible patients with hypertension who completed ≈3.1 million ambulatory visits. Preliminary results demonstrate substantial room for improvement in BP control (<140/90 mm Hg), which was 58% overall, and in the clinical processes relevant for BP control. For example, only 12% of patients with hypertension with a high BP measurement during an ambulatory visit received an order for a new antihypertensive medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is designed to be a reusable platform for efficient surveillance and comparative effectiveness research; results from demonstration projects are forthcoming.

Cost-Effectiveness and Challenges of Implementing Intensive Blood Pressure Goals and Team-Based Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Review the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges of intensive blood pressure (BP) control and team-based care initiatives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intensive BP control is an effective and cost-effective intervention; yet, implementation in routine clinical practice is challenging. Several models of team-based care for hypertension management have been shown to be more effective than usual care to control BP. Additional research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of team-based care models relative to one another and as they relate to implementing intensive BP goals. As a focus of healthcare shifts to value (i.e., cost, effectiveness, and patient preferences), formal cost-effectiveness analyses will inform which team-based initiatives hold the highest value in different healthcare settings with different populations and needs. Several challenges, including clinical inertia, financial investment, and billing restrictions for pharmacist-delivered services, will need to be addressed in order to improve public health through intensive BP control and team-based care.