The association between restricted activity and patient outcomes in older adults: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Restricted activity is a potential early marker of declining health in older adults. Previous studies of this association with patient outcomes have been inconclusive. This review aimed to evaluate the extent to which restricted activity is associated with decline in health. METHODS: A search was conducted for studies including people over 65 years old which investigated the association between measures of restricted activity and hospitalisation, cognitive decline, and mortality. Following data extraction by two reviewers, eligible studies were summarised using Inverse Variance Heterogeneity meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search identified 8,434 unique publications, with 11 eligible studies. Three measures of restricted activity were identified: bed rest, restricted movement, and dependency for activities of daily living (ADL). Three studies looked at hospitalisations, with two finding a significant association with bed rest or restricted movement and one showing no evidence of an association. Restricted activity was associated with a significant increase in mortality across all three measures (bed rest odds ratio [OR] 6.34, 95%CI 2.51-16.02, I2 = 76%; restricted movement OR 5.38 95%CI 2.60-11.13, I2 = 69%; general ADL dependency OR 4.65 95%CI 2.25-9.26, I2 = 84%). The significant heterogeneity observed could not be explained by restricting the analysis by length of follow-up, or measure of restricted activity. No meta-analysis was conducted on the limited evidence for cognitive decline outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Limited studies have considered the prognostic value of restricted activity in terms of predicting future declining health. Current evidence suggests restricted activity is associated with hospitalisation and mortality, and therefore could identify a group for whom early intervention might be possible.

'Legacy publication of a 2009 validation of the Riester Big Ben Square Desk aneroid device for blood pressure measurement according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults (2002)'.

OBJECTIVE: To report a validation of the Riester Big Ben Square Desk Aneroid Sphygmomanometer according to the international protocol developed by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension 2002 (ESH-IP 2002) in the interest of transparency. This legacy publication is intended to assure users that the device satisfied the requirements in place at that time. METHODS: Performance of the device was assessed by participants' age, sex, arm circumference and entry SBP/DBP. Validation was performed in 33 participants. The sphygmomanometer was assessed according to the ESH-IP, which defines zones of accuracy compared to the mercury standard as ≤5, ≤10, ≤15 mmHg or more. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) age was 50.5 ±â€…13.0 years, range 29-71 years, entry SBP 142.6 ±â€…23.7 mmHg, entry DBP 89.0 ±â€…17.8 mmHg. The device passed all the requirements listed and the validation protocol. The Riester Big Ben Square Desk aneroid sphygmomanometer slightly underestimated the observer-measured SBP, yet slightly overestimated DBP. The observer-device disagreement was -0.8 ±â€…6.4 mmHg SBP and +0.6 ±â€…4.0 mmHg DBP. CONCLUSION: These data show that the Riester Big Ben Square Desk aneroid sphygmomanometer fulfilled the ESH-IP 2002 requirements for the validation of BP monitors. It was on this basis that the British and Irish Hypertension Society recommended it for clinical use in the adult population.

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.

Personalized Antihypertensive Treatment Optimization With Smartphone-Enabled Remote Precision Dosing of Amlodipine During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PERSONAL-CovidBP Trial).

BACKGROUND: The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care. REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

The feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using hand-held electrocardiogram devices.

AIMS: There are few data on the feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) using hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) devices outside a specialist setting or in people over the age of 75. We investigated the feasibility of screening when conducted without face-to-face contact ('remote') or via in-person appointments in primary care and explored impact of age on screening outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: People aged ≥65 years from 13 general practices in England participated in screening during 2019-20. This involved attending a practice nurse appointment (10 practices) or receiving an ECG device by post (three practices). Participants were asked to use a hand-held ECG for 1-4 weeks. Screening outcomes included uptake, quality of ECGs, AF detection rates, and uptake of anticoagulation if AF was detected. Screening was carried out by 2141 (87.5%) of people invited to practice nurse-led screening and by 288 (90.0%) invited to remote screening. At least 56 interpretable ECGs were provided by 98.0% of participants who participated for 3 weeks, with no significant differences by setting or age, except people aged 85 or over (91.1%). Overall, 2.6% (64/2429) screened participants had AF, with detection rising with age (9.2% in people aged 85 or over). A total of 53/64 (82.8%) people with AF commenced anticoagulation. Uptake of anticoagulation did not vary by age. CONCLUSION: Population screening for paroxysmal AF is feasible in general practice and without face-to-face contact for all ages over 64 years, including people aged 85 and over.

Self-monitoring blood pressure in Pregnancy: Evaluation of health professional experiences of the BUMP trials.

BACKGROUND: The BUMP trials evaluated a self-monitoring of blood pressure intervention in addition to usual care, testing whether they improved detection or control of hypertension for women at risk of hypertension or with hypertension during pregnancy. This process evaluation aimed to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of the BUMP trials of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy. METHODS: Twenty-two in-depth qualitative interviews and an online survey with 328 healthcare professionals providing care for pregnant people in the BUMP trials were carried out across five maternity units in England. RESULTS: Analysis used Normalisation Process Theory to identify factors required for successful implementation and integration into routine practice. Healthcare professionals felt self-monitoring of blood pressure did not over-medicalise pregnancy for women with, or at risk of, hypertension. Most said self-monitored readings positively affected their clinical encounters and professional roles, provided additive information on which to base decisions and enriched their relationships with pregnant people. Self-monitoring of blood pressure shifts responsibilities. Some healthcare professionals felt women having responsibility to decide on timing of monitoring and whether to act on self-monitored readings was unduly burdensome, and resulted in healthcare professionals taking additional responsibility for supporting them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite healthcare professionals' early concerns that self-monitoring of blood pressure might over-medicalise pregnancy, our analysis shows the opposite was the case when used in the care of pregnant people with, or at higher risk of, hypertension. While professionals retained ultimate clinical responsibility, they viewed self-monitoring of blood pressure as a means of sharing responsibility and empowering women to understand their bodies, to make judgements and decisions, and to contribute to their care.

Comparison of clinic and home blood pressure readings in higher risk pregnancies - Secondary analysis of the BUMP 1 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinic and home blood pressure readings in higher risk pregnancies in the antenatal period from 20 weeks gestation, and to evaluate differences between the two modalities. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study comprising a secondary analysis of a large randomised controlled trial (BUMP 1). POPULATION: Normotensive women at higher risk of pregnancy hypertension randomised to self-monitoring of blood pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the overall mean difference between clinic and home readings for systolic blood pressure (sBP) and diastolic blood pressure (dBP). Blood pressure readings were averaged across each gestational week for each participant and compared within the same gestational week. Calculations of the overall differences were based on the average difference for each week for each participant. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 925 participants. In total, 92 (10 %) developed a hypertensive disorder during the pregnancy. A significant difference in the overall mean sBP (clinic - home) of 1.1 mmHg (0.5-1.6 95 %CI) was noted, whereas no significant difference for the overall mean dBP was found (0.0 mmHg (-0.4-0.4 95 %CI)). No tendency of proportional bias was noted based on Bland-Altman plots. Increasing body mass index in general increased the difference (clinic - home) for both sBP and dBP in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically significant difference was found between clinic and home blood pressure readings in normotensive higher risk pregnancies from gestational week 20+0 until 40+0. Clinic and home blood pressure readings might be considered equal during pregnancy in women who are normotensive at baseline.

Detection and Control of Pregnancy Hypertension Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure With Automated Telemonitoring: Cost Analyses of the BUMP Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy hypertension continues to cause maternal and perinatal morbidity. Two linked UK randomized trials showed adding self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring to usual antenatal care did not result in earlier detection or better control of pregnancy hypertension. This article reports the trials' integrated cost analyses. METHODS: Two cost analyses. SMBP with usual care was compared with usual care alone in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (BUMP 1 trial [Blood Pressure Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancy to Improve the Detection and Monitoring of Hypertension], n=2441) and with hypertension (BUMP 2 trial, n=850). Clinical notes review identified participant-level antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care and these were costed. Comparisons between trial arms used means and 95% CIs. Within BUMP 2, chronic and gestational hypertension cohorts were analyzed separately. Telemonitoring system costs were reported separately. RESULTS: In BUMP 1, mean (SE) total costs with SMBP and with usual care were £7200 (£323) and £7063 (£245), respectively, mean difference (95% CI), £151 (-£633 to £936). For the BUMP 2 chronic hypertension cohort, corresponding figures were £13 384 (£1230), £12 614 (£1081), mean difference £323 (-£2904 to £3549) and for the gestational hypertension cohort were £11 456 (£901), £11 145 (£959), mean difference £41 (-£2486 to £2567). The per-person cost of telemonitoring was £6 in BUMP 1 and £29 in BUMP 2. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was not associated with changes in the cost of health care contacts for individuals at risk of, or with, pregnancy hypertension. This is reassuring as SMBP in pregnancy is widely prevalent, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334149.

Using self-monitoring to detect and manage raised blood pressure and pre-eclampsia during pregnancy: the BUMP research programme and its impact.

Raised blood pressure affects around ten percent of pregnancies worldwide, causing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Self-monitoring of blood pressure during higher-risk or hypertensive pregnancy has been shown to be feasible, acceptable, safe, and no more expensive than usual care alone. Additionally, self-testing for proteinuria has been shown to be just as accurate as healthcare professional testing, creating the potential for monitoring of multiple indicators through pregnancy. The work suggests however, that an organisational shift is needed to properly use and see benefits from self-monitored readings. This paper describes the findings from a large programme of work examining the use of self-monitoring in pregnancy, summarising the findings in the context of the wider literature and current clinical context. The BUMP Research Programme developed and tested self-monitoring and self-testing interventions for pregnancy. The work showed that self-monitoring during pregnancy was feasible, acceptable, safe, and no more expensive, but did not improve the detection or control of hypertension.

Cardiac Remodeling After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Blood Pressure Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial Imaging Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive pregnancy disorders are associated with adverse cardiac remodeling, which can fail to reverse in the postpartum period in some women. The Physician-Optimized Postpartum Hypertension Treatment trial demonstrated that improved blood pressure control while the cardiovascular system recovers postpartum associates with persistently reduced blood pressure. We now report the effect on cardiac remodeling. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial, in a single UK hospital, 220 women were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-monitoring with research physician-optimized antihypertensive titration or usual postnatal care from a primary care physician and midwife. Participants were 18 years of age or older, with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, requiring antihypertensives on hospital discharge postnatally. Prespecified secondary cardiac imaging outcomes were recorded by echocardiography around delivery, and again at blood pressure primary outcome assessment, around 9 months postpartum, when cardiovascular magnetic resonance was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 187 women (101 intervention; 86 usual care) underwent echocardiography at baseline and follow-up, at a mean 258±14.6 days postpartum, of which 174 (93 intervention; 81 usual care) also had cardiovascular magnetic resonance at follow-up. Relative wall thickness by echocardiography was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.07-0.05; P<0.001) lower in the intervention group between baseline and follow-up, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance at follow-up demonstrated a lower left ventricular mass (-6.37 g/m2; 95% CI, -7.99 to -4.74; P<0.001), end-diastolic volume (-3.87 mL/m2; 95% CI, -6.77 to -0.98; P=0.009), and end-systolic volume (-3.25 mL/m2; 95% CI, 4.87 to -1.63; P<0.001) and higher left and right ventricular ejection fraction by 2.6% (95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P<0.001) and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.4-4.1; P<0.001), respectively. Echocardiography-assessed left ventricular diastolic function demonstrated a mean difference in average E/E' of 0.52 (95% CI, -0.97 to -0.07; P=0.024) and a reduction in left atrial volumes of -4.33 mL/m2 (95% CI, -5.52 to -3.21; P<0.001) between baseline and follow-up when adjusted for baseline differences in measures. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term postnatal optimization of blood pressure control after hypertensive pregnancy, through self-monitoring and physician-guided antihypertensive titration, associates with long-term changes in cardiovascular structure and function, in a pattern associated with more favorable cardiovascular outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04273854.

Long-Term Blood Pressure Control After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pregnancy hypertension results in adverse cardiac remodeling and higher incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases in later life. Objective: To evaluate whether an intervention designed to achieve better blood pressure control in the postnatal period is associated with lower blood pressure than usual outpatient care during the first 9 months postpartum. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, blinded, end point trial set in a single hospital in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, following pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, requiring antihypertensive medication postnatally when discharged. The first enrollment occurred on February 21, 2020, and the last follow-up, November 2, 2021. The follow-up period was approximately 9 months. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-monitoring along with physician-optimized antihypertensive titration or usual postnatal care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure at 9 months postpartum, adjusted for baseline postnatal blood pressure. Results: Two hundred twenty participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 112) or the control group (n = 108). The mean (SD) age of participants was 32.6 (5.0) years, 40% had gestational hypertension, and 60% had preeclampsia. Two hundred participants (91%) were included in the primary analysis. The 24-hour mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure, measured at 249 (16) days postpartum, was 5.8 mm Hg lower in the intervention group (71.2 [5.6] mm Hg) than in the control group (76.6 [5.7] mm Hg). The between-group difference was -5.80 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.40 to -4.20; P < .001). Similarly, the 24-hour mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 6.5 mm Hg lower in the intervention group (114.0 [7.7] mm Hg) than in the control group (120.3 [9.1] mm Hg). The between-group difference was -6.51 mm Hg (95% CI, -8.80 to -4.22; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center trial, self-monitoring and physician-guided titration of antihypertensive medications was associated with lower blood pressure during the first 9 months postpartum than usual postnatal outpatient care in the UK. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04273854.

A treatment strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol for women with pregnancy hypertension: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (Giant PANDA).

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in ten women have high blood pressure during pregnancy. Hypertension is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, and as treatment improves maternal outcomes, antihypertensive treatment is recommended. Previous trials have been unable to provide a definitive answer on which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes and the need for robust evidence evaluating maternal and infant benefits and risks remains an important, unanswered question for research and clinical communities. METHODS: The Giant PANDA study is a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine (calcium channel blocker), versus labetalol (mixed alpha/beta blocker) in 2300 women with pregnancy hypertension. The primary objective is to evaluate if treatment with nifedipine compared to labetalol in women with pregnancy hypertension reduces severe maternal hypertension without increasing fetal or neonatal death or neonatal unit admission. Subgroup analyses will be undertaken by hypertension type (chronic, gestational, pre-eclampsia), diabetes (yes, no), singleton (yes, no), self-reported ethnicity (Black, all other), and gestational age at randomisation categories (11 + 0 to 19 + 6, 20 + 0 to 27 + 6, 28 + 0 to 34 + 6 weeks). A cost-effectiveness analysis using an NHS perspective will be undertaken using a cost-consequence analysis up to postnatal hospital discharge and an extrapolation exercise with a lifetime horizon conditional on the results of the cost-consequence analysis. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to address the uncertainty of which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial results are intended to provide definitive evidence to inform guidelines and linked, shared decision-making tools, thus influencing clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616 registered on 18 November 2020.

European Society of Hypertension recommendations for the validation of cuffless blood pressure measuring devices: European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability.

BACKGROUND: There is intense effort to develop cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices, and several are already on the market claiming that they provide accurate measurements. These devices are heterogeneous in measurement principle, intended use, functions, and calibration, and have special accuracy issues requiring different validation than classic cuff BP monitors. To date, there are no generally accepted protocols for their validation to ensure adequate accuracy for clinical use. OBJECTIVE: This statement by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability recommends procedures for validating intermittent cuffless BP devices (providing measurements every >30 sec and usually 30-60 min, or upon user initiation), which are most common. VALIDATION PROCEDURES: Six validation tests are defined for evaluating different aspects of intermittent cuffless devices: static test (absolute BP accuracy); device position test (hydrostatic pressure effect robustness); treatment test (BP decrease accuracy); awake/asleep test (BP change accuracy); exercise test (BP increase accuracy); and recalibration test (cuff calibration stability over time). Not all these tests are required for a given device. The necessary tests depend on whether the device requires individual user calibration, measures automatically or manually, and takes measurements in more than one position. CONCLUSION: The validation of cuffless BP devices is complex and needs to be tailored according to their functions and calibration. These ESH recommendations present specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices to ensure that only accurate devices will be used in the evaluation and management of hypertension.

Requirements for design and function of blood pressure measuring devices used for the management of hypertension: Consensus Statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability and STRIDE BP.

OBJECTIVE: To develop scientific consensus recommendations for the optimal design and functions of different types of blood pressure (BP) measuring devices used in clinical practice for the detection, management, and long-term follow-up of hypertension. METHODS: A scientific consensus meeting was performed by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability and STRIDE BP (Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and Development in Europe) during the 2022 Scientific Meeting of the ESH in Athens, Greece. Manufacturers were also invited to provide their feedback on BP device design and development. Thirty-one international experts in clinical hypertension and BP monitoring contributed to the development of consensus recommendations on the optimal design of BP devices. STATEMENT: International consensus was reached on the requirements for the design and features of five types of BP monitors, including office (or clinic) BP monitors, ambulatory BP monitors, home BP monitors, home BP telemonitors, and kiosk BP monitors for public spaces. For each device type "essential" requirements (must have), and "optional" ones (may have) are presented, as well as additional comments on the optimal device design and features. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations aim at providing manufacturers of BP devices with the requirements that are considered mandatory, or optional, by clinical experts involved in the detection and management of hypertension. They are also directed to administrative healthcare personnel involved in the provision and purchase of BP devices so that they can recommend the most appropriate ones.

Predicting the risk of acute kidney injury in primary care: derivation and validation of STRATIFY-AKI.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensives reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease but are also associated with harms including acute kidney injury (AKI). Few data exist to guide clinical decision making regarding these risks. AIM: To develop a prediction model estimating the risk of AKI in people potentially indicated for antihypertensive treatment. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational cohort study using routine primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England. METHOD: People aged ≥40 years, with at least one blood pressure measurement between 130 mmHg and 179 mmHg were included. Outcomes were admission to hospital or death with AKI within 1, 5, and 10 years. The model was derived with data from CPRD GOLD (n = 1 772 618), using a Fine-Gray competing risks approach, with subsequent recalibration using pseudo-values. External validation used data from CPRD Aurum (n = 3 805 322). RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 59.4 years and 52% were female. The final model consisted of 27 predictors and showed good discrimination at 1, 5, and 10 years (C-statistic for 10-year risk 0.821, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.818 to 0.823). There was some overprediction at the highest predicted probabilities (ratio of observed to expected event probability for 10-year risk 0.633, 95% CI = 0.621 to 0.645), affecting patients with the highest risk. Most patients (>95%) had a low 1- to 5-year risk of AKI, and at 10 years only 0.1% of the population had a high AKI and low CVD risk. CONCLUSION: This clinical prediction model enables GPs to accurately identify patients at high risk of AKI, which will aid treatment decisions. As the vast majority of patients were at low risk, such a model may provide useful reassurance that most antihypertensive treatment is safe and appropriate while flagging the few for whom this is not the case.

Attainment of NICE blood pressure targets among older people with newly diagnosed hypertension: nationwide linked electronic health records cohort study.

BACKGROUND: it is not known if clinical practice reflects guideline recommendations for the management of hypertension in older people and whether guideline adherence varies according to overall health status. AIMS: to describe the proportion of older people attaining National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline blood pressure targets within 1 year of hypertension diagnosis and determine predictors of target attainment. METHODS: a nationwide cohort study of Welsh primary care data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank including patients aged ≥65 years newly diagnosed with hypertension between 1st June 2011 and 1st June 2016. The primary outcome was attainment of NICE guideline blood pressure targets as measured by the latest blood pressure recording up to 1 year after diagnosis. Predictors of target attainment were investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: there were 26,392 patients (55% women, median age 71 [IQR 68-77] years) included, of which 13,939 (52.8%) attained a target blood pressure within a median follow-up of 9 months. Success in attaining target blood pressure was associated with a history of atrial fibrillation (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11, 1.43), heart failure (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06, 1.49) and myocardial infarction (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10, 1.32), all compared to no history of each, respectively. Care home residence, the severity of frailty, and increasing co-morbidity were not associated with target attainment following adjustment for confounder variables. CONCLUSIONS: blood pressure remains insufficiently controlled 1 year after diagnosis in nearly half of older people with newly diagnosed hypertension, but target attainment appears unrelated to baseline frailty, multi-morbidity or care home residence.

The association between antihypertensive treatment and serious adverse events by age and frailty: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensives are effective at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but limited data exist quantifying their association with serious adverse events, particularly in older people with frailty. This study aimed to examine this association using nationally representative electronic health record data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a retrospective cohort study utilising linked data from 1,256 general practices across England held within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1998 and 2018. Included patients were aged 40+ years, with a systolic blood pressure reading between 130 and 179 mm Hg, and not previously prescribed antihypertensive treatment. The main exposure was defined as a first prescription of antihypertensive treatment. The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death within 10 years from falls. Secondary outcomes were hypotension, syncope, fractures, acute kidney injury, electrolyte abnormalities, and primary care attendance with gout. The association between treatment and these serious adverse events was examined by Cox regression adjusted for propensity score. This propensity score was generated from a multivariable logistic regression model with patient characteristics, medical history and medication prescriptions as covariates, and new antihypertensive treatment as the outcome. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by age and frailty. Of 3,834,056 patients followed for a median of 7.1 years, 484,187 (12.6%) were prescribed new antihypertensive treatment in the 12 months before the index date (baseline). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation or death from falls (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.26), hypotension (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35), syncope (aHR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.22), acute kidney injury (aHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.47), electrolyte abnormalities (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48), and primary care attendance with gout (aHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.37). The absolute risk of serious adverse events with treatment was very low, with 6 fall events per 10,000 patients treated per year. In older patients (80 to 89 years) and those with severe frailty, this absolute risk was increased, with 61 and 84 fall events per 10,000 patients treated per year (respectively). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses using different approaches to address confounding and taking into account the competing risk of death. A strength of this analysis is that it provides evidence regarding the association between antihypertensive treatment and serious adverse events, in a population of patients more representative than those enrolled in previous randomised controlled trials. Although treatment effect estimates fell within the 95% CIs of those from such trials, these analyses were observational in nature and so bias from unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive treatment was associated with serious adverse events. Overall, the absolute risk of this harm was low, with the exception of older patients and those with moderate to severe frailty, where the risks were similar to the likelihood of benefit from treatment. In these populations, physicians may want to consider alternative approaches to management of blood pressure and refrain from prescribing new treatment.

A qualitative study of the dynamics of access to remote antenatal care through the lens of candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of pregnant women, antenatal healthcare professionals, and system leaders to understand the impact of the implementation of remote provision of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 93 participants, including 45 individuals who had been pregnant during the study period, 34 health care professionals, and 14 managers and system-level stakeholders. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method and used the theoretical framework of candidacy. RESULTS: We found that remote antenatal care had far-reaching effects on access when understood through the lens of candidacy. It altered women's own identification of themselves and their babies as eligible for antenatal care. Navigating services became more challenging, often requiring considerable digital literacy and sociocultural capital. Services became less permeable, meaning that they were more difficult to use and demanding of the personal and social resources of users. Remote consultations were seen as more transactional in character and were limited by lack of face-to-face contact and safe spaces, making it more difficult for women to make their needs - both clinical and social - known, and for professionals to assess them. Operational and institutional challenges, including problems in sharing of antenatal records, were consequential. There were suggestions that a shift to remote provision of antenatal care might increase risks of inequities in access to care in relation to every feature of candidacy we characterised. CONCLUSION: It is important to recognise the implications for access to antenatal care of a shift to remote delivery. It is not a simple swap: it restructures many aspects of candidacy for care in ways that pose risks of amplifying existing intersectional inequalities that lead to poorer outcomes. Addressing these challenges through policy and practice action is needed to tackle these risks.