Strategies for Identifying Patients for Deprescribing of Blood Pressure Medications in Routine Practice: An Evidence Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarise the evidence regarding which patients might benefit from deprescribing antihypertensive medications. RECENT FINDINGS: Older patients with frailty, multi-morbidity and subsequent polypharmacy are at higher risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment, and therefore may benefit from antihypertensive deprescribing. It is possible to examine an individual's risk of these adverse events, and use this to identify those people where the benefits of treatment may be outweighed by the harms. While such patients might be considered for deprescribing, the long-term effects of this treatment strategy remain unclear. Evidence now exists to support identification of those who are at risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment. These patients could be targeted for deprescribing interventions, although the long-term benefits and harms of this approach are unclear. PERSPECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials are still needed to examine the long-term effects of deprescribing in high-risk patients with frailty and multi-morbidity.

Predictors and determinants of albuminuria in people with prediabetes and diabetes based on smoking status: A cross-sectional study using the UK Biobank data.

Background: Smoking is attributed to both micro- and macrovascular complications at any stage of metabolic deregulation including prediabetes. Current global diabetes prevention programmes appear to be glucocentric, and do not fully acknowledge the ramifications of cardiorenal risk factors in smokers and ex-smokers. A more holistic approach is needed to prevent vascular complications in people with prediabetes and diabetes before and after quitting. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on participants who agreed to take part in the UK Biobank dataset at the time of their first attendances between March 01, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Those who had their urinary albumin concentration (UAC) data available were included, and those who did not have this data, were excluded. A logistic regression model was fitted to explore the relationship between cardiorenal risk factors and albuminuria in people with prediabetes and diabetes, based on smoking status. Findings: A total of 502,490 participants were included in the UK Biobank dataset. Of them, 30.4% (n=152,896) had their UAC level recorded. Compared with non-smokers, the odds of albuminuria in smokers with prediabetes and diabetes were 1.21 (95% CI 1.05 - 1.39, p=0.009), and 1.26 (95% CI 1.10 - 1.44, p=0.001), respectively. The odds declined after quitting in both groups, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Each unit increase in HbA1c was associated with equivalent increased odds of albuminuria in current and ex-smokers, OR 1.035 (95% CI 1.030 - 1.039, p<0.001), and 1.026 (95% CI 1.023 - 1.028, p <0.001), respectively. Compared to females, male ex-smokers were at 15% increased odds of albuminuria. In ex-smokers, each unit increase in waist circumference was associated with 1% increased risk of albuminuria. Compared with the least deprived quintiles, the odds of albuminuria in the most deprived quintiles, in current and ex-smokers were identical, OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.04-1.324, p=0.010), and 1.19 (95% CI 1.11 - 1.27, p<0.001), respectively. Interpretation: Male smokers are at a higher risk of albuminuria after smoking cessation. Monitoring waist circumference in quitters may identify those who are at a higher risk of albuminuria. Combining smoking cessation intervention in smokers with prediabetes in the current diabetes prevention programmes may offset post-cessation weight gain and reduce the risk of albuminuria. Funding: University of Sheffield.

Antihypertensive Deprescribing in Older Adults: a Practical Guide.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarise evidence on both appropriate and inappropriate antihypertensive drug withdrawal. RECENT FINDINGS: Deprescribing should be attempted in the following steps: (1) identify patients with several comorbidities and significant functional decline, i.e. people at higher risk for negative outcomes related to polypharmacy and lower blood pressure; (2) check blood pressure; (3) identify candidate drugs for deprescribing; (4) withdraw medications at 4-week intervals; (5) monitor blood pressure and check for adverse events. Although evidence is accumulating regarding short-term outcomes of antihypertensive deprescribing, long-term effects remain unclear. The limited evidence for antihypertensive deprescribing means that it should not be routinely attempted, unless in response to specific adverse events or following discussions between physicians and patients about the uncertain benefits and harms of the treatment. PERSPECTIVES: Clinical controlled trials are needed to examine the long-term effects of deprescribing in older subjects, especially in those with comorbidities, and significant functional decline.

Consultations for clinical features of possible cancer and associated urgent referrals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study from English primary care.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear to what extent reductions in urgent referrals for suspected cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic were the result of fewer patients attending primary care compared to GPs referring fewer patients. METHODS: Cohort study including electronic health records data from 8,192,069 patients from 663 English practices. Weekly consultation rates, cumulative consultations and referrals were calculated for 28 clinical features from the NICE suspected cancer guidelines. Clinical feature consultation rate ratios (CRR) and urgent referral rate ratios (RRR) compared time periods in 2020 with 2019. FINDINGS: Consultations for cancer clinical features decreased by 24.19% (95% CI: 24.04-24.34%) between 2019 and 2020, particularly in the 6-12 weeks following the first national lockdown. Urgent referrals for clinical features decreased by 10.47% (95% CI: 9.82-11.12%) between 2019 and 2020. Overall, once patients consulted with primary care, GPs urgently referred a similar or greater proportion of patients compared to previous years. CONCLUSION: Due to the significant fall in patients consulting with clinical features of cancer there was a lower than expected number of urgent referrals in 2020. Sustained efforts should be made throughout the pandemic to encourage the public to consult their GP with cancer clinical features.

The health impacts of preventive cardiovascular medication reduction on older populations: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is inevitable and appropriate for many conditions, but in some cases, it can be problematic resulting in an increased risk of harm and reduced quality of life. There has been an increasing interest to reduce cardioprotective medications in older adults to potentially reduce the risk of harm due to treatment; however, there is no evidence on safety and efficacy to support this practice currently. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of reducing cardioprotective medication in older populations. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched from their inception onwards for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies on interventions (prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control) conducted in older adults (75 years or older) examining reduction of cardioprotective medications will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary outcome variables of interest are all-cause hospitalisation, mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, falls, fractures, cognitive functioning, bleeding events, renal functioning, medication burden, drug reinstatement, time-in-hospital, and frailty status. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach; the risk of bias will be assessed by the RoB-II tool for randomised controlled studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Where sufficient data are available, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis by combining the outcomes of the included studies. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression are planned to assess the potential harms and risks of different drug classes and the impacts in different patient populations (e.g. sex, cognitive status, renal status, and age). DISCUSSION: The study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles identified using our search strategy on the safety and efficacy of cardioprotective medication reduction in the older population. The findings will be crucial to inform clinicians on potential health outcomes of reducing cardiovascular medication in the elderly. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020208223.

Blood Pressure Changes Following Antihypertensive Medication Reduction, by Drug Class and Dose Chosen for Withdrawal: Exploratory Analysis of Data From the OPTiMISE Trial.

Aims: Deprescribing of antihypertensive drugs is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy, but there is little evidence to inform which drug (or dose) should be withdrawn. This study used data from the OPTiMISE trial to examine whether short-term outcomes of deprescribing vary by drug class and dose of medication withdrawn. Methods: The OPTiMISE trial included patients aged ≥80 years with controlled systolic blood pressure (SBP; <150 mmHg), receiving ≥2 antihypertensive medications. This study compared SBP control, mean change in SBP and frequency of adverse events after 12 weeks in participants stopping one medication vs. usual care, by drug class and equivalent dose of medication withdrawn. Equivalent dose was determined according to the defined daily dose (DDD) of each medication type. Drugs prescribed below the DDD were classed as low dose and those prescribed at ≥DDD were described as higher dose. Outcomes were examined by generalized linear mixed effects models. Results: A total of 569 participants were randomized, aged 85 ± 3 years with controlled blood pressure (mean 130/69 mmHg). Within patients prescribed calcium channel blockers, higher dose medications were more commonly selected for withdrawal (90 vs. 10%). In those prescribed beta-blockers, low dose medications were more commonly chosen (87 vs. 13%). Withdrawal of calcium channel blockers was associated with an increase in SBP (5 mmHg, 95%CI 0-10 mmHg) and reduced SBP control (adjusted RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.80-0.998) compared to usual care. In contrast, withdrawal of beta-blockers was associated with no change in SBP (-4 mmHg, 95%CI -10 to 2 mmHg) and no difference in SBP control (adjusted RR 1.15, 95%CI 0.96-1.37). Similarly, withdrawal of higher dose medications was associated with an increase in SBP but no change in BP control. Withdrawal of lower dose medications was not associated with a difference in SBP or SBP control. There was no association between withdrawal of specific drug classes and adverse events. Conclusion: These exploratory data suggest withdrawal of higher dose calcium channel blockers should be avoided if the goal is to maintain BP control. However, low dose beta-blockers may be removed with little impact on blood pressure over 12-weeks of follow-up. Larger studies are needed to confirm these associations.

GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hypertension in older patients with multimorbidity is a cornerstone of primary care practice. Despite emphasis on personalised approaches to treatment in older patients, there is little guidance on how to achieve medication reduction when GPs are concerned that possible risks outweigh potential benefits of treatment. Mindlines - tacit, internalised guidelines developed over time from multiple sources - may be of particular importance in such situations. AIM: To explore GPs' decision-making on deprescribing antihypertensives in patients with multimorbidity aged ≥80 years, drawing on the concept of mindlines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study set in English general practice. METHOD: Thematic analysis of face-to-face interviews with a sample of 15 GPs from seven practices in the East of England, using a chart-stimulated recall approach to explore approaches to treatment for older patients with multimorbidity with hypertension. RESULTS: GPs are typically confident making decisions to deprescribe antihypertensive medication in older patients with multimorbidity when prompted by a trigger, such as a fall or adverse drug event. GPs are less confident to attempt deprescribing in response to generalised concerns about polypharmacy, and work hard to make sense of multiple sources (including available evidence, shared experiential knowledge, and non-clinical factors) to guide decision-making. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a clear evidence base on when and how to attempt medication reduction in response to concerns about polypharmacy, GPs develop 'mindlines' over time through practicebased experience. These tacit approaches to making complex decisions are critical to developing confidence to attempt deprescribing and may be strengthened through reflective practice.

Generalizability of Blood Pressure Lowering Trials to Older Patients: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials are used to inform clinical guidelines on the management of hypertension in older adults, but it is unclear to what extent these trials represent the general population attending routine clinical practice. This study aimed to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for hypertension trials conducted in older people. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A total of 24 general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymized electronic health record data from all individuals aged 80 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for two previous medication intensification trials (HYVET, SPRINT) and one medication reduction trial (OPTiMISE). A logistic regression model was constructed to estimate predictors of eligibility for each trial. RESULTS: Of 15,376 patients identified, 268 (1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.0%), 5,290 (34.4%; 95%CI = 33.7-35.2%), and 3,940 (25.6%; 95%CI = 24.9-26.3%) were eligible for the HYVET, SPRINT, and OPTiMISE trials, respectively. Between 5.6% and 30.7% of exclusions from each trial were due to eligibility criteria excluding those with high or uncontrolled blood pressure. Frailty (odds ratio [OR] = .44; 95%CI = .36-.54 [OPTiMISE]), cardiovascular polypharmacy (OR = .61; 95%CI = .55-.68 [SPRINT]) and multimorbidity (OR = .72; 95%CI = .64-.82 [SPRINT]) were associated with a lower likelihood of being eligible for one or more of the trials. CONCLUSION: A possible unintended consequence of blood pressure criteria used by trials attempting to answer different primary questions is that for many older patients, no trial evidence exists to inform treatment decisions in routine practice. Caution should be exercised when applying results from existing trials to patients with frailty or multimorbidity.

Effect of Antihypertensive Medication Reduction vs Usual Care on Short-term Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension Aged 80 Years and Older: The OPTIMISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Hypocapnia Alone Fails to Provoke Important Electrocardiogram Changes in Coronary Artery Diseased Patients.

BACKGROUND: There is still an urgent clinical need to develop non-invasive diagnostic tests for early ischemic heart disease because, once angina occurs, it is too late. Hypocapnia has long been known to cause coronary artery vasoconstriction. Some new cardiology tests are accompanied by the claim that they must have potential diagnostic value if hypocapnia enhances their cardiac effects in healthy subjects. But no previous study has tested whether hypocapnia produces bigger cardiac effects in patients with angina than in healthy subjects. METHODS: Severe hypocapnia (a PetCO2 level of 20 mmHg) lasting >15 min was mechanically induced by facemask, while conscious and unmedicated, in 18 healthy subjects and in 10 patients with angina and angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease, awaiting by-pass surgery. Each participant was their own control in normocapnia (where CO2 was added to the inspirate) and the order of normocapnia and hypocapnia was randomized. Twelve lead electrocardiograms (ECG) were recorded and automated measurements were made on all ECG waveforms averaged over >120 beats. 2D echocardiography was also performed on healthy subjects. RESULTS: In the 18 healthy subjects, we confirm that severe hypocapnia (a mean PetCO2 of 20 ± 0 mmHg, P < 0.0001) consistently increased the mean T wave amplitude in leads V1-V3, but by only 31% (P < 0.01), 15% (P < 0.001) and 11% (P < 0.05), respectively. Hypocapnia produced no other significant effects (p > 0.05) on their electro- or echocardiogram. All 10 angina patients tolerated the mechanical hyperventilation well, with minimal discomfort. Hypocpania caused a similar increase in V1 (by 39%, P < 0.05 vs. baseline, but P > 0.05 vs. healthy controls) and did not induce angina. Its effects were no greater in patients who did not take ß-blockers, or did not take organic nitrates, or had the worst Canadian Cardiovascular Society scores. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive mechanical hyperventilation while awake and unmedicated is safe and acceptable, even to patients with angina. Using it to produce severe and prolonged hypocapnia alone does produce significant ECG changes in angina patients. But its potential diagnostic value for identifying patients with coronary stenosis requires further evaluation.

OPtimising Treatment for MIld Systolic hypertension in the Elderly (OPTiMISE): protocol for a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests that larger blood pressure reductions and multiple antihypertensive drugs may be harmful in older people, particularly frail individuals with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support deprescribing of antihypertensives, which limits the practice of medication reduction in routine clinical care. The aim of this trial is to examine whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible in older patients without significant changes in blood pressure control at follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will use a primary care-based, open-label, randomised controlled trial design. A total of 540 participants will be recruited, aged ≥80 years, with systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg and receiving ≥2 antihypertensive medications. Participants will have no compelling indication for medication continuation and will be considered to potentially benefit from medication reduction due to existing polypharmacy, comorbidity and frailty. Following a baseline appointment, individuals will be randomised to a strategy of medication reduction (intervention) with optional self-monitoring or usual care (control). Those in the intervention group will have one antihypertensive medication stopped. The primary outcome will be to determine if a reduction in medication can achieve a proportion of participants with clinically safe blood pressure levels at 12-week follow-up (defined as a systolic blood pressure <150 mm Hg), which is non-inferior (within 10%) to that achieved by the usual care group. Qualitative interviews will be used to understand the barriers and facilitators to medication reduction. The study will use economic modelling to predict the long-term effects of any observed changes in blood pressure and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, informed consent form, participant information sheet and all other participant facing material have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central-Oxford A; ref 16/SC/0628), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (ref 21584/0371/001-0001), host institution(s) and Health Research Authority. All research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN97503221; Pre-results.

Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in the Clinic for the Diagnosis of Hypertension in Primary Care: An Economic Evaluation.

Clinical guidelines in the United States and United Kingdom recommend that individuals with suspected hypertension should have ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. This approach reduces misdiagnosis because of white coat hypertension but will not identify people with masked hypertension who may benefit from treatment. The Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm predicts masked and white coat hypertension based on patient characteristics and clinic BP, improving the accuracy of diagnosis while limiting subsequent ambulatory BP monitoring. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using this tool in diagnosing hypertension in primary care. A Markov cost-utility cohort model was developed to compare diagnostic strategies: the PROOF-BP approach, including those with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg who receive ambulatory BP monitoring as guided by the algorithm, compared with current standard diagnostic strategies including those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg combined with further monitoring (ambulatory BP monitoring as reference, clinic, and home monitoring also assessed). The model adopted a lifetime horizon with a 3-month time cycle, taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The PROOF-BP algorithm was cost-effective in screening all patients with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg compared with current strategies that only screen those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg, provided healthcare providers were willing to pay up to £20 000 ($26 000)/quality-adjusted life year gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case findings. The PROOF-BP algorithm seems to be cost-effective compared with the conventional BP diagnostic options in primary care. Its use in clinical practice is likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular disease, death, and disability.

Predictors of the Home-Clinic Blood Pressure Difference: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients may have lower (white coat hypertension) or higher (masked hypertension) blood pressure (BP) at home compared to the clinic, resulting in misdiagnosis and suboptimal management of hypertension. This study aimed to systematically review the literature and establish the most important predictors of the home-clinic BP difference. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using a MEDLINE search strategy, adapted for use in 6 literature databases. Studies examining factors that predict the home-clinic BP difference were included in the review. Odds ratios (ORs) describing the association between patient characteristics and white coat or masked hypertension were extracted and entered into a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 3,743 articles of which 70 were eligible for this review. Studies examined a total of 86,167 patients (47% female) and reported a total of 60 significant predictors of the home-clinic BP difference. Masked hypertension was associated with male sex (OR 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.75), body mass index (BMI, per kg/m(2) increase, OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), current smoking status (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.13-1.50), and systolic clinic BP (per mm Hg increase, OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.19). Female sex was the only significant predictor of white coat hypertension (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.64-6.96). CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of common patient characteristics that predict the home-clinic BP difference, in particular for people with masked hypertension. There is scope to incorporate such predictors into a clinical prediction tool which could be used to identify those patients displaying a significant masked or white coat effect in routine clinical practice.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP-SMART): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is effective in reducing blood pressure in hypertension. However previous meta-analyses have shown a considerable amount of heterogeneity between studies, only part of which can be accounted for by meta-regression. This may be due to differences in design, recruited populations, intervention components or results among patient subgroups. To further investigate these differences, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure will be performed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify randomised trials that have compared patients with hypertension who are self-monitoring blood pressure with those who are not and invite trialists to provide IPD including clinic and/or ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure at baseline and all follow-up points where both intervention and control groups were measured. Other data requested will include measurement methodology, length of follow-up, cointerventions, baseline demographic (age, gender) and psychosocial factors (deprivation, quality of life), setting, intensity of self-monitoring, self-monitored blood pressure, comorbidities, lifestyle factors (weight, smoking) and presence or not of antihypertensive treatment. Data on all available patients will be included in order to take an intention-to-treat approach. A two-stage procedure for IPD meta-analysis, stratified by trial and taking into account age, sex, diabetes and baseline systolic BP will be used. Exploratory subgroup analyses will further investigate non-linear relationships between the prespecified variables. Sensitivity analyses will assess the impact of trials which have and have not provided IPD. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not include identifiable data. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and by international conference presentations. CONCLUSIONS: IPD analysis should help the understanding of which self-monitoring interventions for which patient groups are most effective in the control of blood pressure.

Health care professionals' views on discussing sexual wellbeing with patients who have had a stroke: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the experiences of health care professionals discussing sexual wellbeing with patients who have had a stroke. DESIGN: In-depth qualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 30 health care professionals purposively recruited to include different roles and settings along the stroke patient pathway in secondary and primary care. SETTING: Two hospitals and three general practices in the West Midlands, UK. RESULTS: Sexual wellbeing was a topic that participants did not raise with patients and was infrequently raised by patients. Barriers to raising discussion were on four levels: structural, health care professional, patient, and professional-patient interface. Barriers within these levels included: sexual wellbeing not present within hospital stroke policy; the perception that sexual wellbeing was not within participants' role; participants' concern that raising the issue could cause harm to the patient; and the views that discussion would be inappropriate with older people or unimportant to women. Resources exist to aid discussion but many participants were unaware of them, and most of those that were, did not use them routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Participants lacked motivation, ownership, and the confidence and skills to raise sexual wellbeing routinely after stroke. Similar findings have been reported in cancer care and other taboo subjects such as incontinence potentially resulting in a sub-optimal experience for patients. Normalisation of the inclusion of sensitive topics in discussions post-stroke does not seem to need significant structural intervention and simple changes such as information provision and legitimisation through consideration of the issue in standard care policies may be all that is required. The experiences recounted by professionals in this study suggest that such changes are needed now.