Home Blood Pressure Self-monitoring plus Self-titration of Antihypertensive Medication for Poorly Controlled Hypertension in Primary Care: the ADAMPA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment through pharmacological self-management is a common strategy in some chronic diseases such as diabetes, but it is rarely used for controlling blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess self-monitoring plus self-titration of antihypertensive medication versus usual care for reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 months in poorly controlled hypertensive patients. DESIGN: The ADAMPA study was a pragmatic, controlled, randomized, non-masked clinical trial with two parallel arms in Valencia, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Hypertensive patients older than 40 years, with SBP over 145 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) over 90 mmHg, were recruited from July 2017 to June 2018. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized 1:1 to usual care versus an individualized, pre-arranged plan based on self-monitoring plus self-titration. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference (AMD) in SBP between groups at 12 months. KEY RESULTS: Primary outcome data were available for 312 patients (intervention n=156, control n=156) of the 366 who were initially recruited. The AMD in SBP at 12 months (main analysis) was -2.9 mmHg (95% CI, -5.9 to 0.1, p=0.061), while the AMD in DBP was -1.9 mmHg (95% CI, -3.7 to 0.0, p=0.052). The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with these for the main outcome measures. More patients in the intervention group achieved good blood pressure control (<140/90 mmHg) at 12 months than in the control group (55.8% vs 42.3%, difference 13.5%, 95% CI, 2.5 to 24.5%, p=0.017). At 12 months, no differences were observed in behavior, quality of life, use of health services, or adverse events. CONCLUSION: Self-monitoring plus self-titration of antihypertensive medication based on an individualized pre-arranged plan used in primary care may be a promising strategy for reducing blood pressure at 12 months compared to usual care, without increasing healthcare utilization or adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT, number 2016-003986-25 (registered 17 March 2017) and clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03242785.

Association of Vitamin K and Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulant Use and Cancer Incidence in Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

The association between the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and cancer risk reduction remains unclear. We aimed to assess the association between the use of VKAs or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and the incidence of cancer in a large cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by means of a population-based, propensity-weighted cohort study using population-wide databases including patients diagnosed with nonvalvular AF (NVAF) followed for up of 5 years (median 2.94 years). We created two cohorts based on the initiation therapy (VKA or DOAC). Initiation with VKA or DOAC was defined as filling a prescription with no previous exposure in the preceding 12 months. Cancer diagnoses of any type and for specific tumors (lung, colon, prostate, bladder, and breast). We included 39,989 patients, 31,200 (78.0%) in the VKA cohort. Incidence rate for any cancer was 12.45 per 1,000 person-year in the DOAC cohort vs. 14.55 in the VKA cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.32). In secondary outcomes, no differences were found for specific types of cancer, such as lung (HR: 1.28, CI: 0.89-1.83), colon (HR: 0.84, CI: 0.62-1.13), prostate (HR: 1.40, CI: 0.94-2.10), bladder (HR: 1.07, CI: 0.76-1.52), and breast (HR: 1.05, CI: 0.66-1.69). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Subgroup analyses also produced consistent findings, except for men, for whom VKA was associated with a lower risk of colon cancer (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.96). Our results do not confirm a chemoprotective effect of VKA when compared with DOAC in a large, real-world cohort of patients with NVAF followed for up to 5 years.