Clinical Decision Support for Recognizing and Managing Hypertensive Blood Pressure in Youth: No Significant Impact on Medical Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate economic costs from the health system perspective of an electronic health record-based clinical decision support (CDS) tool, TeenBP, designed to assist in the recognition and management of hypertension in youth. METHODS: Twenty primary care clinics within an integrated health system were randomized to the TeenBP CDS or usual care (UC), with patient enrollment from 4/15/14 to 4/14/16. The 12-month change in standardized medical care costs for insured patients aged 10 to 17 years without prior hypertension were calculated for each study arm. The primary analysis compared patients with ≥1 visit with blood pressure (BP) ≥95th percentile (isolated hypertensive BP), and secondary analyses compared patients with ≥3 visits within one year with BP ≥95th percentile (incident hypertension). Generalized estimating equation models estimated the difference-in-differences in costs between groups over time. RESULTS: Among 925 insured patients with an isolated hypertensive BP, the pre-to-post change in overall costs averaged $22 more for TeenBP CDS versus UC patients over 12 months, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .723). Among 159 insured patients with incident hypertension, the pre-to-post change in overall costs over 12 months was higher by $227 per person on average for TeenBP CDS versus UC patients, but this difference also was not statistically significant (P = .313). CONCLUSIONS: The TeenBP CDS intervention was previously found to significantly improve identification and management of hypertensive BP in youth, and in this study, we find that this tool did not significantly increase care costs in its first 12 months of clinical use.

Modeling the Health and Budgetary Impacts of a Team-based Hypertension Care Intervention That Includes Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the potential health and budgetary impacts of implementing a pharmacist-involved team-based hypertension management model in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: In 2017, we evaluated a pharmacist-involved team-based care intervention among 3 targeted groups using a microsimulation model designed to estimate cardiovascular event incidence and associated health care spending in a cross-section of individuals representative of the US population: implementing it among patients with: (1) newly diagnosed hypertension; (2) persistently (≥1 year) uncontrolled blood pressure (BP); or (3) treated, yet persistently uncontrolled BP-and report outcomes over 5 and 20 years. We describe the spending thresholds for each intervention strategy to achieve budget neutrality in 5 years from a payer's perspective. RESULTS: Offering this intervention could prevent 22.9-36.8 million person-years of uncontrolled BP and 77,200-230,900 heart attacks and strokes in 5 years (83.8-174.8 million and 393,200-922,900 in 20 years, respectively). Health and economic benefits strongly favored groups 2 and 3. Assuming an intervention cost of $525 per enrollee, the intervention generates 5-year budgetary cost-savings only for Medicare among groups 2 and 3. To achieve budget neutrality in 5 years across all groups, intervention costs per person need to be around $35 for Medicaid, $180 for private insurance, and $335 for Medicare enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a pharmacist-involved team-based hypertension model could substantially improve BP control and cardiovascular outcomes in the United States. Net cost-savings among groups 2 and 3 make a compelling case for Medicare, but favorable economics may also be possible for private insurers, particularly if innovations could moderately lower the cost of delivering an effective intervention.

Understanding Primary Care Provider Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Diabetes Prevention in the Northern Midwest.

IN BRIEF We sought to fill critical gaps in understanding primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs regarding diabetes prevention and cardiovascular disease risk in the prediabetes population, including through comparison of attitudes between rural and non-rural PCPs. We used data from a 2016 cross-sectional survey sent to 299 PCPs practicing in 36 primary clinics that are part of a randomized control trial in a predominately rural northern Midwestern integrated health care system. Results showed a few significant, but clinically marginal, differences between rural and non-rural PCPs. Generally, PCPs agreed with the importance of screening for prediabetes and thoroughly and clearly discussing CV risk with high-risk patients.

A Successful Multifaceted Trial to Improve Hypertension Control in Primary Care: Why Did it Work?

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand which components of successful multifaceted interventions are responsible for study outcomes, since some components may be more important contributors to the intervention effect than others. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a mediation analysis to determine which of seven factors had the greatest effect on change in systolic blood pressure (BP) after 6 months in a trial to improve hypertension control. DESIGN: The study was a preplanned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial. Eight clinics in an integrated health system were randomized to provide usual care to their patients (n = 222), and eight were randomized to provide a telemonitoring intervention (n = 228). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred three of 450 trial participants completing the 6-month follow-up visit were included. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group participants received home BP telemonitors and transmitted measurements to pharmacists, who adjusted medications and provided advice to improve adherence to medications and lifestyle modification via telephone visits. MAIN MEASURES: Path analytic models estimated indirect effects of the seven potential mediators of intervention effect (defined as the difference between the intervention and usual care groups in change in systolic BP from baseline to 6 months). The potential mediators were change in home BP monitor use, number of BP medication classes, adherence to BP medications, physical activity, salt intake, alcohol use, and weight. KEY RESULTS: The difference in change in systolic BP was 11.3 mmHg. The multivariable mediation model explained 47 % (5.3 mmHg) of the intervention effect. Nearly all of this was mediated by two factors: an increase in medication treatment intensity (24 %) and increased home BP monitor use (19 %). The other five factors were not significant mediators, although medication adherence and salt intake improved more in the intervention group than in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the explained intervention effect was attributable to the combination of self-monitoring and medication intensification. High adherence at baseline and the relatively low intensity of resources directed toward lifestyle change may explain why these factors did not contribute to the improvement in BP.

Effect of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management on blood pressure control: a cluster randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Only about half of patients with high blood pressure (BP) in the United States have their BP controlled. Practical, robust, and sustainable models are needed to improve BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an intervention combining home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist case management improves BP control compared with usual care and to determine whether BP control is maintained after the intervention is stopped. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A cluster randomized clinical trial of 450 adults with uncontrolled BP recruited from 14,692 patients with electronic medical records across 16 primary care clinics in an integrated health system in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, with 12 months of intervention and 6 months of postintervention follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Eight clinics were randomized to provide usual care to patients (n = 222) and 8 clinics were randomized to provide a telemonitoring intervention (n = 228). Intervention patients received home BP telemonitors and transmitted BP data to pharmacists who adjusted antihypertensive therapy accordingly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Control of systolic BP to less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP to less than 90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in BP, patient satisfaction, and BP control at 18 months (6 months after intervention stopped). RESULTS: At baseline, enrollees were 45% women, 82% white, mean (SD) age was 61.1 (12.0) years, and mean systolic BP was 148 mm Hg and diastolic BP was 85 mm Hg. Blood pressure was controlled at both 6 and 12 months in 57.2% (95% CI, 44.8% to 68.7%) of patients in the telemonitoring intervention group vs 30.0% (95% CI, 23.2% to 37.8%) of patients in the usual care group (P = .001). At 18 months (6 months of postintervention follow-up), BP was controlled in 71.8% (95% CI, 65.0% to 77.8%) of patients in the telemonitoring intervention group vs 57.1% (95% CI, 51.5% to 62.6%) of patients in the usual care group (P = .003). Compared with the usual care group, systolic BP decreased more from baseline among patients in the telemonitoring intervention group at 6 months (-10.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.3 to -7.3 mm Hg]; P<.001), at 12 months (-9.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -13.4 to -6.0 mm Hg]; P<.001), and at 18 months (-6.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.7 to -2.5 mm Hg]; P = .004). Compared with the usual care group, diastolic BP decreased more from baseline among patients in the telemonitoring intervention group at 6 months (-6.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.6 to -3.4 mm Hg]; P<.001), at 12 months (-5.1 mm Hg [95% CI, -7.4 to -2.8 mm Hg]; P<.001), and at 18 months (-3.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.3 to 0.3 mm Hg]; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Home BP telemonitoring and pharmacist case management achieved better BP control compared with usual care during 12 months of intervention that persisted during 6 months of postintervention follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781365.