Unresolved Issues in the Management of Hypertension

Efficacy of an mHealth App to Support Patients' Self-Management of Hypertension: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a significant global disease burden. Mobile health (mHealth) offers a promising means to provide patients with hypertension with easy access to health care services. Yet, its efficacy needs to be validated, especially in lower-income areas with a high-salt diet.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the efficacy of an mHealth app-based intervention in supporting patients' self-management of hypertension.

METHODS

A 2-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted among 297 patients with hypertension at the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China. Participants selected via convenience sampling were randomly allocated into intervention and control groups. Intervention group participants were trained and asked to use an mHealth app named Blood Pressure Assistant for 6 months. They could use the app to record and upload vital signs, access educational materials, and receive self-management reminders and feedback from health care providers based on the analysis of the uploaded data. Control group participants received usual care. Blood pressure (BP) and 2 questionnaire surveys about hypertension knowledge and lifestyle behavior were used to assess all participants at baseline and 6 months. Data analysis was performed with SPSS software using 2-tailed t tests and a chi-square test.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and medication use between the 2 groups (all P>.05). After 6 months, although both groups show a significant pre-post improvement (P<.001 each), the BP control rate (ie, the proportion of patients with a systolic BP of <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP of <90 mm Hg) in the intervention group was better than that in the control group (100/111, 90.1% vs 75/115, 65.2%; P<.001). The mean systolic and diastolic BP were significantly reduced by 25.83 (SD 8.99) and 14.28 (SD 3.74) mm Hg in the intervention group (P<.001) and by 21.83 (SD 6.86) and 8.87 (SD 4.22) mm Hg in the control group (P<.001), respectively. The differences in systolic and diastolic BP between the 2 groups were significant (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively). Hypertension knowledge significantly improved only in the intervention group in both pre-post and intergroup comparisons (both P<.001). However, only intragroup improvement was observed for lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group (P<.001), including medication adherence (P<.001), healthy diet (P=.02), low salt intake (P<.001), and physical exercises (P=.02), and no significant difference was observed in the control group or on intergroup comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

This research shows that the mHealth app-based intervention has the potential to improve patient health knowledge and support self-management among them toward a healthier lifestyle, including medication adherence, low-salt diets, and physical exercises, thereby achieving optimal BP control. Further research is still needed to verify the specific effects of these interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900026437; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=38801.

Has the SPRINT trial introduced a new blood-pressure goal in hypertension?

SPRINT is the first randomized, controlled trial showing that a systolic blood-pressure goal of <120 mmHg can be attained with cardiovascular benefits in a select group of patients with hypertension and an elevated cardiovascular risk with different origins. Although the patient population with characteristics like those in SPRINT makes up only 20-30% of the total hypertensive population, SPRINT is a landmark study that highlights the need to consider lower blood- pressure goals in the treatment of hypertension. Extending this study to include other patient populations and geographical areas is the next step for evaluating the benefits of strict blood-pressure targets and the generalizability of the SPRINT results. Importantly, the blood-pressure measurement method used in SPRINT differs from previous clinical trials, and raises the issue of whether a more accurate method should be used in clinical trials and if such method is feasible in clinical practice. This Perspectives article provides an analysis of the SPRINT data, focusing on patient characteristics, blood-pressure measurement method, and applicability of the SPRINT findings for future management guidelines.

Mobile Phone Text Messages to Support Treatment Adherence in Adults With High Blood Pressure (SMS-Text Adherence Support [StAR]): A Single-Blind, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of automated treatment adherence support delivered via mobile phone short message system (SMS) text messages on blood pressure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this pragmatic, single-blind, 3-arm, randomized trial (SMS-Text Adherence Support [StAR]) undertaken in South Africa, patients treated for high blood pressure were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to information only, interactive SMS text messaging, or usual care. The primary outcome was change in systolic blood pressure at 12 months from baseline measured with a validated oscillometric device. All trial staff were masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were intention to treat. Between June 26, 2012, and November 23, 2012, 1372 participants were randomized to receive information-only SMS text messages (n=457), interactive SMS text messages (n=458), or usual care (n=457). Primary outcome data were available for 1256 participants (92%). At 12 months, the mean adjusted change in systolic blood pressure compared with usual care was -2.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -4.4 to -0.04) with information-only SMS and -1.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -3.7 to 0.6) with interactive SMS. Odds ratios for the proportion of participants with a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg were 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.95) for information-only messaging and 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.95) for interactive messaging compared with usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial of an automated adherence support program delivered by SMS text message in a general outpatient population of adults with high blood pressure, we found a small reduction in systolic blood pressure control compared with usual care at 12 months. There was no evidence that an interactive intervention increased this effect.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02019823. South African National Clinical Trials Register, number SANCTR DOH-27-1212-386; Pan Africa Trial Register, number PACTR201411000724141.

Antihypertensive treatment and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events among persons without hypertension: a meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk increases beginning at systolic blood pressure levels of 115 mm Hg. Use of antihypertensive medications among patients with a history of CVD or diabetes and without hypertension has been debated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of antihypertensive treatment on secondary prevention of CVD events and all-cause mortality among persons without clinically defined hypertension.

DATA SOURCES

Meta-analysis with systematic search of MEDLINE (1950 to week 3 of January 2011), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials and manual examination of references in selected articles and studies.

STUDY SELECTION

From 874 potentially relevant publications, 25 trials that fulfilled the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information on participant characteristics, trial design and duration, treatment drug, dose, control, and clinical events were extracted using a standardized protocol. Outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), composite CVD outcomes, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, participants receiving antihypertensive medications had a pooled relative risk of 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.98) for stroke, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93) for MI, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.77) for CHF, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.90) for composite CVD events, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99) for CVD mortality, and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95) for all-cause mortality from random-effects models. The corresponding absolute risk reductions per 1000 persons were -7.7 (95% CI, -15.2 to -0.3) for stroke, -13.3 (95% CI, -28.4 to 1.7) for MI, -43.6 (95% CI, -65.2 to -22.0) for CHF events, -27.1 (95% CI, -40.3 to -13.9) for composite CVD events, -15.4 (95% CI, -32.5 to 1.7) for CVD mortality, and -13.7 (95% CI, -24.6 to -2.8) for all-cause mortality. Results did not differ according to trial characteristics or subgroups defined by clinical history.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with clinical history of CVD but without hypertension, antihypertensive treatment was associated with decreased risk of stroke, CHF, composite CVD events, and all-cause mortality. Additional randomized trial data are necessary to assess these outcomes in patients without CVD clinical recommendations.