The short and long-term efficacy of nurse-led interventions for improving blood pressure control in people with hypertension in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews suggest that nurse-led interventions improve short-term blood pressure (BP) control for people with hypertension. However, the long-term effects, adverse events, and appropriate target BP level are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of nurse-led interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and CINAHL, as well as three Japanese article databases, as relevant randomized controlled trials from the oldest possible to March 2021. This search was conducted on 17 April 2021. We did an update search on 17 October 2023. We included studies on adults aged 18 years or older with hypertension. The treatments of interest were community-based nurse-led BP control interventions in addition to primary physician-provided care as usual. The comparator was usual care only. Primary outcomes were long-term achievement of BP control goals and serious adverse events (range: 27 weeks to 3 years). Secondary outcomes were short-term achievement of BP control goals and serious adverse events (range: 4 to 26 weeks), change of systolic and diastolic BP from baseline, medication adherence, incidence of hypertensive complications, and total mortality. RESULTS: We included 35 studies. Nurse-led interventions improved long-term BP control (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.18). However, no significant differences were found in the short-term effects of nurse-led intervention compared to usual care about BP targets. Little information on serious adverse events was available. There was no difference in mortality at both terms between the two groups. Establishing the appropriate target BP from the extant trials was impossible. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led interventions may be more effective than usual care for achieving BP control at long-term follow-up. It is important to continue lifestyle modification for people with hypertension. We must pay attention to adverse events, and more studies examining appropriate BP targets are needed. Nurse-led care represents an important complement to primary physician-led usual care.

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis.

A recent meta-epidemiological study did not reveal major differences between the results of blinded and open randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Fewer patients may consent to double-blind RCTs than to open RCTs, compromising generalisability, making this question very important. However, the issue has not been addressed in schizophrenia. We used a database of randomised, acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials. Whenever at least one open and one blinded RCT was available for a comparison of two drugs, we contrasted the results by random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests. The primary outcome was overall symptoms as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, supplemented by seven secondary efficacy and side-effect outcomes. We also examined whether open RCTs were biased in favour of more recently introduced antipsychotics, less efficacious or more prone to side-effects antipsychotics, and pharmaceutical sponsors. 183 RCTs (155 blinded and 28 open) with 34715 participants comparing two active drugs were available. The results did not suggest general differences between open and blinded RCTs, which examined two active drugs. Only 12 out of 122 subgroup tests had a p-value below 0.1, four below 0.05, and if a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests had been applied, only one would have been significant. There were some exceptions which, however, did not always confirm the originally hypothesized direction of bias. Due to the relatively small number of open RCTs, our analysis is exploratory, but this fundamental question should be given more scientific attention. Currently, open RCTs should be excluded from meta-analyses, at least in sensitivity analyses.