Abstract W P303: Clinical Inertia in the Management of Blood Pressure after a Stroke

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.

[Impact of cognitive biases in therapeutic inertia in arterial hypertension: Not everything is as it seems]

Therapeutic inertia is defined as the failure to take therapeutic decisions, such as initiating, adding or increasing the dose of a drug during patient follow-up, despite there being an indication to do so. It is currently considered that therapeutic inertia is a considerable impediment to achieving adequate control of hypertension, and this has implications for the prognosis of the disease. Therapeutic inertia might be due to various factors involving physicians, patients and the health system. Many studies have attempted to find determinants for therapeutic inertia in hypertension and to explain the reasons why health professionals in charge of treatment are failing to make the appropriate modifications to therapy. The many reasons for therapeutic inertia on the part of physicians include the various cognitive and affective biases that influence clinical reasoning and decision-making during healthcare activity in doctors' surgeries. Identifying and recognising these cognitive and affective biases could be important for planning educational strategies for health professionals. This requires a multi-dimensional approach, including knowledge beyond that observed in terms of insufficient information and updating on the disease, and starting to analyse and consider other reasons. Preventing therapeutic inertia should be made a priority along with other important measures to control hypertension and minimise its consequences.

Clinical inertia in the pharmacological management of hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical Inertia is defined as "failure of health care providers to initiate or intensify therapy according to current guidelines". This phenomenon is gaining increasing attention as a major cause of clinicians' failure to adequately manage hypertension, thus leading to an increased incidence of cardiovascular events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing clinical inertia in the pharmacological treatment of hypertension improve blood pressure (BP) control.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from the start of their database until October 3, 2017 for the MESH terms "Hypertension" or "Blood Pressure", their subheadings, and the keywords "Therapeutic Inertia" or "Clinical Inertia". Studies were included if they addressed pharmacologic hypertension management, clinical inertia, were randomized controlled trials, reported an outcome describing prescriber behavior, and were available in English. Data for the included studies was extracted by two independent observers. Quality of studies was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment. Data was pooled for statistical analysis using both fixed- and random-effects models. The primary study outcome was the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure control as defined by the Joint National Committee guidelines or study authors.

RESULTS

Of 474 citations identified, ten met inclusion criteria comprising a total of 26,871 patients, and eight were selected for meta-analysis. Interventions included Physician Education, Physician Reminders, Patient Education, Patient Reminders, Ambulatory BP Monitoring, Digital Medication Offerings, Physician Peer Visits, and Pharmacist-led Counselling. Pooled event rates revealed more patients with controlled BP in the intervention group versus control (55%, 95% CI 46-63% versus 45%, 95% CI 37-53%) and interventions significantly improved the odds of BP control (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.12-1.27, P < .001). Heterogeneity in the quantitative analysis was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS & RELEVANCE

Addressing clinical inertia through physician reminders, ambulatory BP monitoring, and educational interventions for primary care providers was associated with an improvement in blood pressure control. Our findings encourage further research to investigate strategies at reducing clinical inertia in the management of hypertension.