Relationship of Blood Pressure, Health Behaviors, and New Diagnosis and Control of Hypertension in the BP-CHECK Study.

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) are common and contribute to excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether BP control, changes in BP, and patient behaviors and attitudes were associated with a new hypertension diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 323 participants from BP-CHECK (Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension), a randomized diagnostic study of BP measuring methods in adults without diagnosed hypertension with elevated BP recruited from 12 primary care clinics of an integrated health care system in Washington State during 2017 to 2019. All 323 participants returned a positive diagnostic test for hypertension based on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and were followed for 6 months. We used linear regression to examine the relationships between a new hypertension diagnosis (primary independent variable) and differences in the change in study outcomes from baseline to 6-month. RESULTS: Mean age of study participants was 58.3 years (SD, 13.1), 147 (45%) were women, and 253 (80%) were of non-Hispanic White race. At 6 months, 154 of 323 (48%) participants had a new hypertension diagnosis of whom 88 achieved target BP control. Participants with a new hypertension diagnosis experienced significantly larger declines from baseline in BP (adjusted mean difference: systolic BP, -7.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.3 to -4.8]; diastolic BP, -3.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.6 to -2.0]) compared with undiagnosed peers. They were also significantly more likely to achieve BP control by 6 months compared with undiagnosed participants (adjusted relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0]). At 6 months, 101 of 323 participants (31%) with a positive ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic test remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants with high BP on screening and ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic testing remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications after 6 months. New strategies are needed to enhance integration of BP diagnostic testing into clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03130257.

The Complex Patchwork of Transportation for In-Center Hemodialysis.

Reliable transportation is an important determinant of access to health care and health outcomes that carries particular significance for people with ESKD. In the United States, there are almost half a million patients receiving treatment with in-center dialysis, translating into more than 70 million roundtrips to dialysis centers annually. Difficulty with transportation can interfere with patients' quality of life and contribute to missed or shortened dialysis treatments, increasing their risk for hospitalization. Medicare, the principal payer for dialysis in this country, has not traditionally provided coverage for nonemergency medical transportation, placing the burden of traveling to and from the dialysis center on patients and families and a range of other private and public entities that were not designed and are poorly equipped for this purpose. Here, we review the relationship between access to reliable transportation and health outcomes such as missed and shortened dialysis treatments, hospitalizations, and quality of life. We also describe current approaches to the delivery of transportation for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis, highlighting potential opportunities for improvement.

Value Placed on Comfort vs Life Prolongation Among Patients Treated With Maintenance Dialysis.

Importance: Patients receiving maintenance dialysis experience intensive patterns of end-of-life care that might not be consistent with their values. Objective: To evaluate the association of patients' health care values with engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey study of patients who received maintenance dialysis between 2015 and 2018 at dialysis centers in the greater metropolitan areas of Seattle, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee, with longitudinal follow-up of decedents. Logistic regression models were used to estimate probabilities. Data analysis was conducted between May and October 2022. Exposures: A survey question about the value that the participant would place on longevity-focused vs comfort-focused care if they were to become seriously ill. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported engagement in advance care planning and care received near the end of life through 2020 using linked kidney registry data and Medicare claims. Results: Of 933 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [14.0] years; 525 male patients [56.3%]; 254 [27.2%] identified as Black) who responded to the question about values and could be linked to registry data (65.2% response rate [933 of 1431 eligible patients]), 452 (48.4%) indicated that they would value comfort-focused care, 179 (19.2%) that they would value longevity-focused care, and 302 (32.4%) that they were unsure about the intensity of care they would value. Many had not completed an advance directive (estimated probability, 47.5% [95% CI, 42.9%-52.1%] of those who would value comfort-focused care vs 28.1% [95% CI, 24.0%-32.3%] of those who would value longevity-focused care or were unsure; P < .001), had not discussed hospice (estimated probability, 28.6% [95% CI, 24.6%-32.9%] comfort focused vs 18.2% [95% CI, 14.7%-21.7%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001), or had not discussed stopping dialysis (estimated probability, 33.3% [95% CI, 29.0%-37.7%] comfort focused vs 21.9% [95% CI, 18.2%-25.8%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001). Most respondents wanted to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (estimated probability, 78.0% [95% CI, 74.2%-81.7%] comfort focused vs 93.9% [95% CI, 91.4%-96.1%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (estimated probability, 52.0% [95% CI, 47.4%-56.6%] comfort focused vs 77.9% [95% CI, 74.0%-81.7%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001). Among decedents, the percentages of participants who received an intensive procedure during the final month of life (estimated probability, 23.5% [95% CI, 16.5%-31.0%] comfort focused vs 26.1% [95% CI, 18.0%-34.5%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .64), discontinued dialysis (estimated probability, 38.3% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.8%] comfort focused vs 30.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-37.8%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .09), and enrolled in hospice (estimated probability, 32.2% [95% CI, 25.7%-38.7%] comfort focused vs 23.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-30.5%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .07) were not statistically different. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that there appeared to be a disconnect between patients' expressed values, which were largely comfort focused, and their engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care, which reflected a focus on longevity. These findings suggest important opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients receiving dialysis.

Primary care physician beliefs and practices regarding blood pressure measurement: results from BP-CHECK qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Early identification and control of hypertension is critical to reducing cardiovascular disease events and death. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend health care professionals screen all adults for hypertension, yet 1 in 4 adults with hypertension are unaware of their condition. This gap between guidelines and clinical practices highlights an important opportunity to improve blood pressure (BP) screening and hypertension diagnosis, including measurement outside of clinic settings. To identify targets for future diagnostic interventions, we sought to understand primary care physicians' (PCPs) beliefs and practices regarding use of common forms of BP measurement. METHODS: Study participants were PCPs (N = 27) who had patients enrolled in the BP-CHECK trial. The trial compared the accuracy of 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to: 1) clinic-based monitoring, 2) home BP monitoring (HBPM), or 3) use of a BP kiosk in clinics or pharmacies. Physicians were interviewed by phone and compensated for their participation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a template analysis approach. RESULTS: Overall, PCPs preferred and trusted clinic BP measurement for diagnosing hypertension, particularly when measured with a manual sphygmomanometer. Concerns with HBPM included the belief that patients did not follow protocols for rest and body positioning at home, that home machines were not accurate, that home BPs could not be entered into the medical record, and that HBPM would make some patients anxious. Issues regarding kiosk measurement included beliefs that the public setting created stress for patients, that patients did not follow resting protocols when using kiosks, and concerns about the maintenance of these machines. ABPM was recognized as highly accurate but was not perceived as accessible. Additionally, some PCPs found it challenging to interpret the multiple readings generated by ABPM and HBPM, especially when these readings differed from clinic BPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both additional physician education and training and investments in equipment and system-level processes are needed to increase the acceptance and utilization of out of office BP measurement for identification and treatment of hypertension. These changes are needed to improve ensure everyone in the U.S receive optimal care for hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 . Initial registration date: 4/21/2017.

Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement. DESIGN: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit. MEASURES: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Prevalence of SGLT2i and GLP1RA use among US adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To determine national prevalence of sodium-glucose contransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1RA) use among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: We studied adults with T2DM and eGFR ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 who participated in the cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), focusing on the 2017-2020 examination cycle, a key time period prior to widespread dissemination of pivotal trial results and corresponding clinical practice guidelines. We tested prevalence of SGLT2i and GLP1RA use among subgroups based on demographic variables and relevant comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), congestive heart failure (CHF), and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We compared use of SGLT2i and GLP1RA to other glucose-lowering medications and assessed trends from prior NHANES cycles. RESULTS: Among 1375 participants studied in 2017-2020, mean age was 60 years, 46% were women, 13% self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, 10% self-identified as Mexican American, 37% had CKD, 8.5% had CHF, and 23% had ASCVD. The prevalence of SGLT2i and GLP1RA use was 5.8% and 4.4%, respectively. Among adults with CKD, CHF, or ASCVD, SGLT2i were used by 7.7% and GLP1RA were used by 3.5%. Differences in SGLT2i or GLP1RA use were observed by age, race, ethnicity, health insurance status, body mass index, and by whether a single healthcare provider was identified as responsible for diabetes management. Biguanides, sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, and insulin were used more frequently than SGLT2i or GLP1RA. Prevalence of SGLT2i but not GLP1RA use increased significantly from 2013-2014 to 2017-2020. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i and GLP1RA use is low among adults with T2DM, including among those with strong indications. Enhanced implementation of these agents is crucial to improving kidney and cardiovascular outcomes and mitigating health disparities in T2DM.

Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension: Health Professionals' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices.

INTRODUCTION: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement before making a new hypertension diagnosis and initiating treatment, using 24-hour ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring. However, this approach is not common. METHODS: e-mail-linked surveys were sent to primary care team members (n = 421) from 10 clinics. The sample included medical assistants, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced practice registered nurses (LPN/RN/APRNs), physician assistants (PAs), and physicians. Those licensed to diagnosis hypertension (physician/PA/APRNs) received additional questions. Data were collected from November 2017 to July 2019. RESULTS: 2-thirds of invitees responded (163 MA/LPN/RNs, 86 physicians, and 33 PA/APRNs). When making a new hypertension diagnosis, most respondents believed that BP measured manually with a stethoscope (78.6%) or ABPM (84.2%) were very or highly accurate. In contrast, most did not believe that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate. Almost all reported always or almost always relying on clinic BP measurements in making a diagnosis (95.7%), but most physician/PA/APRNs (60.5%) would prefer ABPM if it was readily available. Very few physician/PA/APRNs used the guideline-concordant diagnostic threshold (135/85 mmHg) with home monitoring (14.0%) or ABPM (8.4%), with 140/90 mmHg the most commonly reported threshold for home (59.4%) and ABPM (49.6%). DISCUSSION: Our study found health care professional knowledge, beliefs, and practices gaps in diagnosing hypertension. These gaps could lead to clinical care that is not aligned with guidelines. CONCLUSION: System changes and interventions to increase use of evidence-based practices could improve hypertension diagnosis and outcomes.

Automated Office Blood Pressure and the Impact of Attendance and Rest on Diagnostic Accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3-5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension. METHODS: We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18-85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM). RESULTS: We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended - unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [-0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [-0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 - 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic -0.45 mm Hg [-1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [-1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic -3.6 and diastolic -2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Clinic, Home, and Kiosk Blood Pressure Measurements for Diagnosing Hypertension: a Randomized Diagnostic Study.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

End-of-Life Care among US Adults with ESKD Who Were Waitlisted or Received a Kidney Transplant, 2005-2014.

BACKGROUND: The care of patients in the United States who have ESKD is often shaped by their hopes and prognostic expectations related to kidney transplant. Little is known about how patients' engagement in the transplant process might relate to patterns of end-of-life care. METHODS: We compared six measures of intensity of end-of-life care among adults in the United States with ESKD who died between 2005 and 2014 after experiencing differing exposure to the kidney transplant process. RESULTS: Of 567,832 decedents with ESKD, 27,633 (5%) had a functioning kidney transplant at the time of death, 14,653 (3%) had a failed transplant, 16,490 (3%) had been removed from the deceased donor waitlist, 17,010 (3%) were inactive on the waitlist, 11,529 (2%) were active on the waitlist, and 480,517 (85%) had never been waitlisted for or received a transplant (reference group). In adjusted analyses, compared with the reference group, patients exposed to the transplant process were significantly more likely to have been admitted to an intensive care unit and to have received an intensive procedure in the last 30 days of life; they were also significantly more likely to have died in the hospital. Those who died on the transplant waitlist were also less likely than those in the reference group to have been enrolled in hospice and to have discontinued dialysis before death. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had engaged in the kidney transplant process received more intensive patterns of end-of-life care than other patients with ESKD. These findings support the relevance of advance care planning, even for this relatively healthy segment of the ESKD population.

Assessment of Self-reported Prognostic Expectations of People Undergoing Dialysis: United States Renal Data System Study of Treatment Preferences (USTATE).

Importance: Prognostic understanding can shape patients' treatment goals and preferences. Patients undergoing dialysis in the United States have limited life expectancy and may receive end-of-life care directed at life extension. Little is known about their prognostic expectations. Objective: To understand the prognostic expectations of patients undergoing dialysis and how these relate to care planning, goals, and preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional survey study of 996 eligible patients treated with regular dialysis at 31 nonprofit dialysis facilities in 2 metropolitan areas (Seattle, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee) between April 2015 and October 2018. After a pilot phase, 1434 eligible patients were invited to participate (response rate, 69.5%). To provide a context for interpreting survey participants' prognostic estimates, United States Renal Data System standard analysis files were used to construct a comparison cohort of 307 602 patients undergoing in-center hemodialysis on January 1, 2006, and followed for death through July 31, 2017. Final analyses for this study were conducted between November 2018 and March 2019. Exposures: Responses to the question "How long would you guess people your age with similar health conditions usually live?" (<5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years, or not sure). Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported (1) documentation of a surrogate decision-maker, (2) documentation of treatment preferences, (3) values around life prolongation, (4) preferences for receipt of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, and (5) desired place of death. Results: Of the 996 survey respondents, the mean (SD) age was 62.7 (13.9) years, and 438 (44.0%) were women. Overall, 112 (11.2%) survey respondents selected a prognosis of fewer than 5 years, 150 (15.1%) respondents selected 5 to 10 years, 330 (33.1%) respondents selected more than 10 years, and 404 (40.6%) were not sure. By comparison, 185 427 (60.3%) prevalent US in-center patients undergoing hemodialysis died within 5 years, 58 437 (19.0%) died within 5 to 10 years, and 63 738 (20.7%) lived more than 10 years. In analyses adjusted for participant characteristics, survey respondents with a prognostic expectation of more than 10 years (vs <5 years) were less likely to report documentation of a surrogate decision-maker (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9) and treatment preferences (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6) and to value comfort over life extension (aOR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.04-0.3), and were more likely to want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (aOR, 5.3; 95% CI, 3.2-8.7) and mechanical ventilation (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7). The respondents who reported that they were not sure about prognosis had similar associations. Conclusions and Relevance: Uncertain and overly optimistic prognostic expectations may limit the benefit of advance care planning and contribute to high-intensity end-of-life care in patients undergoing dialysis.

Lower Extremity Amputation and Health Care Utilization in the Last Year of Life among Medicare Beneficiaries with ESRD.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity amputation is common among patients with ESRD, and often portends a poor prognosis. However, little is known about end-of-life care among patients with ESRD who undergo amputation. METHODS: We conducted a mortality follow-back study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD who died in 2002 through 2014 to analyze patterns of lower extremity amputation in the last year of life compared with a parallel cohort of beneficiaries without ESRD. We also examined the relationship between amputation and end-of-life care among the patients with ESRD. RESULTS: Overall, 8% of 754,777 beneficiaries with ESRD underwent at least one lower extremity amputation in their last year of life compared with 1% of 958,412 beneficiaries without ESRD. Adjusted analyses of patients with ESRD showed that those who had undergone lower extremity amputation were substantially more likely than those who had not to have been admitted to-and to have had prolonged stays in-acute and subacute care settings during their final year of life. Amputation was also associated with a greater likelihood of dying in the hospital, dialysis discontinuation before death, and less time receiving hospice services. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in ten patients with ESRD undergoes lower extremity amputation in their last year of life. These patients have prolonged stays in acute and subacute health care settings and appear to have limited access to hospice services. These findings likely signal unmet palliative care needs among seriously ill patients with ESRD who undergo amputation as well as opportunities to improve their care.

Blood pressure checks and diagnosing hypertension (BP-CHECK): Design and methods of a randomized controlled diagnostic study comparing clinic, home, kiosk, and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BPs) before making a new diagnosis of hypertension, using 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM), however this is not common in routine clinical practice. Blood Pressure Checks and Diagnosing Hypertension (BP-CHECK) is a randomized controlled diagnostic study assessing the comparability and acceptability of clinic, home, and kiosk-based BP monitoring to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Stakeholders including patients, providers, policy makers, and researchers informed the study design and protocols. METHODS: Adults aged 18-85 without diagnosed hypertension and on no hypertension medication with elevated BPs in clinic and at the baseline research visit are randomized to one of 3 regimens for diagnosing hypertension: (1) clinic BPs, (2) home BPs, or (3) kiosk BPs; all participants subsequently complete ABPM. The primary outcomes are the comparability (with daytime ABPM mean systolic and diastolic BP as the reference standard) and acceptability (e.g., adherence to, patient-reported outcomes) of each method compared to ABPM. Longer-term outcomes are assessed at 6-months including: patient-reported outcomes, primary care providers' diagnosis of hypertension; and BP control. We report challenges experienced and our response to these. RESULTS: Enrollment began in May of 2017 with a target of randomizing 510 participants. BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the US changed after the trial started. We discuss the stakeholder process used to assess and respond to these changes. CONCLUSION AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT: BP-CHECK will inform which hypertension diagnostic methods are most accurate, acceptable, and feasible to implement in primary care.

Prevalence of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Risk According to Blood Pressure Thresholds Used for Diagnosis.

We sought to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and characteristics of hypertensive adults in the United States according to blood pressure (BP) thresholds used for diagnosis and estimate their associated cardiovascular disease risk. Analyses included adults 20 years of age or older in the 2013 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N=5389) and enrolled participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial; N=9361) and the ACCORD-BP trial (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure; N=4733). In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, prevalence estimates incorporated the probability of observing elevated BP on 2 separate occasions. Using the new BP thresholds of ≥130/80 mm Hg, ≈24 million new American adults would be diagnosed as having hypertension and 4.3 million would be recommended to start antihypertensive medications. These individuals would have a lower mean atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (17%) than participants in SPRINT and ACCORD-BP (22% and 27%) and would be less likely to have prevalent cardiovascular disease (9% versus 17% and 34%). In SPRINT and ACCORD-BP, only a minority (9% and 13%) of participants were not on antihypertensive medications at baseline, and rates of incident cardiovascular disease in these participants were substantially lower compared with those on baseline BP medications. We conclude that adopting the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines would lead to a substantial increase in the prevalence of hypertension and in the number of American adults recommended to start antihypertensive medications. These individuals would have a substantially lower cardiovascular risk than most participants previously studied in 2 large BP trials.

Association of Inpatient Palliative Care with Health Care Utilization and Postdischarge Outcomes among Medicare Beneficiaries with End Stage Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Palliative care may improve quality of life and reduce the cost of care for patients with chronic illness, but utilization and cost implications of palliative care in ESKD have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the association of inpatient palliative care with health care utilization and postdischarge outcomes in ESKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In analyses stratified by whether patients died during the index hospitalization, we identified Medicare beneficiaries with ESKD who received inpatient palliative care, ascertained by provider specialty codes, between 2012 and 2013. These patients were matched to hospitalized patients who received usual care using propensity scores. Primary outcomes were length of stay and hospitalization costs. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission and hospice enrollment. RESULTS: Inpatient palliative care occurred in <1% of hospitalizations lasting >2 days. Among the decedent cohort (n=1308), inpatient palliative care was associated with a 21% shorter length of stay (-4.2 days; 95% confidence interval, -5.6 to -2.9 days) and 14% lower hospitalization costs (-$10,698; 95% confidence interval, -$17,553 to -$3843) compared with usual care. Among the nondecedent cohort (n=5024), inpatient palliative care was associated with no difference in length of stay (0.4 days; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to 1.0 days) and 11% higher hospitalization costs ($4275; 95% confidence interval, $1984 to $6567) compared with usual care. In the 30-day postdischarge period, patients who received inpatient palliative care had higher likelihood of hospice enrollment (hazard ratio, 8.3; 95% confidence interval, 6.6 to 10.5) and lower likelihood of rehospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.7 to 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ESKD who died in the hospital, inpatient palliative care was associated with shorter hospitalizations and lower costs. Among those who survived to discharge, inpatient palliative care was associated with no difference in length of stay and higher hospitalization costs but markedly higher hospice use and fewer readmissions after discharge.

Hospice Use And End-Of-Life Spending Trajectories In Medicare Beneficiaries On Hemodialysis.

Infrequent and late referral to hospice among patients on dialysis likely reflects the impact of a Medicare payment policy that discourages the concurrent receipt of these services, but it may also reflect these patients' less predictable illness trajectories. Among a national cohort of patients on hemodialysis, we identified four distinct spending trajectories during the last year of life that represented markedly different intensities of care. Within the cohort, 9 percent had escalating spending and 13 percent had persistently high spending throughout the last year of life, while 41 percent had relatively low spending with late escalation, and 37 percent had moderate spending with late escalation. Across the four groups, the percentages of patients enrolled in hospice at the time of death were uniformly low ranging from only 19 percent of those with persistently high costs to 21 percent of those with moderate costs and the median number of days spent in hospice during the last year of life was virtually the same (either five or six days). These findings signal the need for greater flexibility in the provision of end-of-life care in this population.

Social Determinants of Health: Addressing Unmet Needs in Nephrology.

There is ongoing recognition that a wide array of social, economic, and environmental factors influence individuals' opportunities to engage in health care and healthy behaviors. Despite spending $34 billion annually on the care of patients with end-stage renal disease, the American public and nephrology community remain remarkably complacent about addressing "upstream" factors that influence the prevention, progression, and treatment of chronic kidney diseases. Recently, a growing number of health plans and dialysis providers have begun to embrace population health management; accept greater accountability for health, health care, and health costs; and envision kidney health beyond their traditional roles in care delivery. This narrative offers a framework to evaluate social determinants of health and understand their link to chronic kidney diseases and provides recommendations for integrating social determinants into clinical care and delivery settings to assist vulnerable patients with broad social needs. Addressing unmet social needs with the same intention as treating hypertension, proteinuria, or anemia represents an important step toward making optimal health a palpable reality for all people who are at risk for or affected by chronic kidney diseases.