Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. DESIGN: Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. SETTING: 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. RESULTS: After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of -3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of -0.5 mm Hg (-1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13790648.

Risk management decisions in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

INTRODUCTION: Pathogenic mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in BRCA1/2 genes. METHODS: Records of women with a pathogenic mutation or VUS in BRCA1/2 treated between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred and ten women were included. Mean age was 47. A pathogenic mutation or a VUS in BRCA1/2 was detected in 85 (77%) and 25 (23%) patients, respectively. The rate of risk reducing mastectomy (RRM) was 50% in women with a pathogenic mutation and 30% in women with a VUS (P = 0.232). Among women with breast cancer, 65% with a pathogenic mutation and 40% with a VUS underwent RRM. Over 50% of women with a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1/2 chose surveillance over operation. DISCUSSION: There was no statistical difference in the rate of RRM among women with a pathogenic mutation or a VUS in BRCA1/2 in our population. The majority of high risk women in our study chose to forgo RRM for breast cancer screening.

Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction).

BACKGROUND: Behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up for obesity is effective, but in resource-constrained primary care settings briefer approaches are needed. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention with regular face-to-face or remote support in primary care, compared with brief advice. DESIGN: Individually randomised three-arm parallel trial with health economic evaluation and nested qualitative interviews. SETTING: Primary care general practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2 (or ≥ 28 kg/m2 with risk factors) identified from general practice records, recruited by postal invitation. INTERVENTIONS: Positive Online Weight Reduction (POWeR+) is a 24-session, web-based weight management intervention completed over 6 months. Following online registration, the website randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to (1) the control intervention (n = 279), which had previously been demonstrated to be clinically effective (brief web-based information that minimised pressure to cut down foods, instead encouraging swaps to healthier choices and increasing fruit and vegetables, plus 6-monthly nurse weighing); (2) POWeR+F (n = 269), POWeR+ supplemented by face-to-face nurse support (up to seven contacts); or (3) POWeR+R (n = 270), POWeR+ supplemented by remote nurse support (up to five e-mails or brief telephone calls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a modelled estimate of average weight reduction over 12 months, assessed blind to group where possible, using multiple imputation for missing data. The secondary outcome was the number of participants maintaining a 5% weight reduction at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 818 eligible individuals were randomised using computer-generated random numbers. Weight change, averaged over 12 months, was documented in 666 out of 818 participants (81%; control, n = 227; POWeR+F, n = 221; POWeR+R, n = 218). The control group maintained nearly 3 kg of weight loss per person (mean weight per person: baseline, 104.4 kg; 6 months, 101.9 kg; 12 months, 101.7 kg). Compared with the control group, the estimated additional weight reduction with POWeR+F was 1.5 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.4 kg; p = 0.001] and with POWeR+R was 1.3 kg (95% CI 0.34 to 2.2 kg; p = 0.007). By 12 months the mean weight loss was not statistically significantly different between groups, but 20.8% of control participants, 29.2% of POWeR+F participants (risk ratio 1.56, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.51; p = 0.070) and 32.4% of POWeR+R participants (risk ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.74; p = 0.004) maintained a clinically significant 5% weight reduction. The POWeR+R group had fewer individuals who reported doing another activity to help lose weight [control, 47.1% (64/136); POWeR+F, 37.2% (51/137); POWeR+R, 26.7% (40/150)]. The incremental cost to the health service per kilogram weight lost, compared with the control group, was £18 (95% CI -£129 to £195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (95% CI -£268 to £157) for POWeR+R. The probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kilogram was 88% and 98% for POWeR+F and POWeR+R, respectively. POWeR+R was dominant compared with the control group. No harms were reported and participants using POWeR+ felt more enabled in managing their weight. The qualitative studies documented that POWeR+ was viewed positively by patients and that health-care professionals generally enjoyed supporting patients using POWeR+. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Maintenance of weight loss after 1 year is unknown. FUTURE WORK: Identifying strategies for longer-term engagement, impact in community settings and increasing physical activity. CONCLUSION: Clinically valuable weight loss (> 5%) is maintained in 20% of individuals using novel written materials with brief follow-up. A web-based behavioural programme and brief support results in greater mean weight loss and 10% more participants maintain valuable weight loss; it achieves greater enablement and fewer participants undertaking other weight-loss activities; and it is likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21244703. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The obesity epidemic has major public health consequences. Expert dietetic and behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up is effective, but resource requirements severely restrict widespread implementation in primary care, where most patients are managed. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention (POWeR+) combined with brief practice nurse support in primary care. METHODS: We did this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at 56 primary care practices in central and south England. Eligible adults aged 18 years or older with a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or more (or ≥28 kg/m(2) with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, or diabetes) registered online with POWeR+-a 24 session, web-based, weight management intervention lasting 6 months. After registration, the website automatically randomly assigned patients (1:1:1), via computer-generated random numbers, to receive evidence-based dietetic advice to swap foods for similar, but healthier, choices and increase fruit and vegetable intake, in addition to 6 monthly nurse follow-up (control group); web-based intervention and face-to-face nurse support (POWeR+Face-to-face [POWeR+F]; up to seven nurse contacts over 6 months); or web-based intervention and remote nurse support (POWeR+Remote [POWeR+R]; up to five emails or brief phone calls over 6 months). Participants and investigators were masked to group allocation at the point of randomisation; masking of participants was not possible after randomisation. The primary outcome was weight loss averaged over 12 months. We did a secondary analysis of weight to measure maintenance of 5% weight loss at months 6 and 12. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. We did analysis by intention to treat, with multiple imputation for missing data. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN21244703. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2013, and March 20, 2014, 818 participants were randomly assigned to the control group (n=279), the POWeR+F group (n=269), or the POWeR+R group (n=270). Weight loss averaged over 12 months was recorded in 666 (81%) participants. The control group lost almost 3 kg over 12 months (crude mean weight: baseline 104·38 kg [SD 21·11; n=279], 6 months 101·91 kg [19·35; n=136], 12 months 101·74 kg [19·57; n=227]). The primary imputed analysis showed that compared with the control group, patients in the POWeR+F group achieved an additional weight reduction of 1·5 kg (95% CI 0·6-2·4; p=0·001) averaged over 12 months, and patients in the POWeR+R group achieved an additional 1·3 kg (0·34-2·2; p=0·007). 21% of patients in the control group had maintained a clinically important 5% weight reduction at month 12, compared with 29% of patients in the POWeR+F group (risk ratio 1·56, 0·96-2·51; p=0·070) and 32% of patients in the POWeR+R group (1·82, 1·31-2·74; p=0·004). The incremental overall cost to the health service per kg weight lost with the POWeR+ interventions versus the control strategy was £18 (95% CI -129 to 195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (-268 to 157) for POWeR+R; the probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kg lost was 88% and 98%, respectively. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Weight loss can be maintained in some individuals by use of novel written material with occasional brief nurse follow-up. However, more people can maintain clinically important weight reductions with a web-based behavioural program and brief remote follow-up, with no increase in health service costs. Future research should assess the extent to which clinically important weight loss can be maintained beyond 1 year. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.