Home blood pressure monitoring schedule: optimal and minimum based on 2122 individual participants' data.

OBJECTIVES: Home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring has become a primary method for hypertension diagnosis and management. This analysis aimed to investigate the optimal and minimum schedule for HBP monitoring. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data was performed, which involved HBP and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring in adults performed within the context of clinical studies in Finland, Greece and UK. Participants with six to seven HBP monitoring days and at least 12 HBP readings were included. The stability of HBP was assessed by evaluating the average value of an increasing number of readings and its variability (SD). Its association with awake ABP was also assessed. RESULTS: Data from 2122 participants were analysed (mean age 53.9 ±â€Š11.3 years, males 53%, treated 34%). A progressive HBP decline was observed in succeeding days, reaching a plateau after day 3. Day 1 HBP was higher than in the next days by about 2.8/1.4 mmHg (systolic/diastolic, P < 0.001). In a 3-day HBP monitoring schedule, the exclusion of day 1 reduced average HBP and SD, with a clinically important HBP decline in 115 participants (5%) and different hypertension diagnosis in 120 participants (6%). For schedules including more than three HBP monitoring days, the exclusion of day 1 had negligible impact. The 3-day average HBP was strongly correlated with awake ABP, with a little improvement thereafter. CONCLUSION: These data support the recommendation for 7 days of HBP monitoring with a minimum of 3 days. Readings of the first day should be discarded, particularly when the minimum 3-day monitoring schedule is obtained (average readings of second and third day).

Intravenous high-dose methotrexate based systemic therapy in the treatment of isolated primary vitreoretinal lymphoma: An LOC network study.

The treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) remains controversial regarding the use of local, systemic, or combined treatments. The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous high-dose methotrexate (IV HD-MTX) based systemic therapy in a uniformly treated population of PVRL patients. From a nationwide French database, we retrospectively selected 59 patients (median age: 70 years, median Karnofsky Performance Status: 90%) with isolated PVRL at diagnosis who received first-line treatment with HD-MTX between 2011 and 2018. 8/59 patients also received a local treatment. No deaths or premature discontinuations of MTX due to toxicity were reported. A complete response was obtained in 40/57 patients after chemotherapy. Before treatment, IL-10 was elevated in the aqueous humor (AH) or in the vitreous in 89% of patients. After treatment, AH IL-10 was undetectable in 87% of patients with a CR/uCR/PR and detectable in 92% of patients with PD/SD. After a median follow-up of 61 months, 42/59 (71%) patients had relapsed, including 29 isolated ocular relapses as the first relapse and a total of 22 brain relapses. The median overall survival, progression-free survival, ocular-free survival and brain-free survival were 75, 18, 29 and 73 months, respectively. IV HD-MTX based systemic therapy as a first-line treatment for isolated PVRL is feasible, with acceptable toxicity, even in an elderly population. This strategy seems efficient to prevent brain relapse with prolonged overall survival. However, the ocular relapse rate remains high. New approaches are needed to improve local control of this disease, and ocular assessment could be completed by monitoring AH IL-10.

Optimizing a digital intervention for managing blood pressure in stroke patients using a diverse sample: Integrating the person-based approach and patient and public involvement.

BACKGROUND: Having a stroke or transient ischaemic attack increases the risk of a subsequent one, especially with high blood pressure (BP). Home-based BP management can be effective at maintaining optimal BP. OBJECTIVE: To describe the optimization of a digital intervention for stroke patients and the value of participant diversity, using the person-based approach (PBA) and integral patient and public involvement (PPI). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Stroke patients recruited from primary care and community settings, and health-care professionals in primary care, in England and Ireland. DESIGN: Three linked qualitative studies conducted iteratively to develop an intervention using the PBA, with integral PPI. INTERVENTION: The BP: Together intervention, adapted from existing BP self-monitoring interventions, is delivered via mobile phone or web interface to support self-monitoring of BP at home. It alerts patients and their clinicians when a change in antihypertensive medication is needed. FINDINGS: Feedback from a diverse range of participants identified potential barriers, which were addressed to improve the intervention accessibility, feasibility and persuasiveness. Easy-to-read materials were developed to improve usability for patients with aphasia and lower literacy. The importance of including family members who support patient care was also highlighted. Feedback messages regarding medication change were refined to ensure usefulness for patients and clinicians. DISCUSSION: Input from PPI alongside qualitative research with a diverse study sample allowed the creation of a simple and equitable BP management intervention for stroke patients. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Two PPI co-investigators contributed to design, conduct of study, data interpretation and manuscript preparation; community PPI sessions informed early planning. Study participants were stroke patients and family members.

Phenotypes of masked hypertension: Isolated ambulatory, isolated home and dual masked hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Masked hypertension (MH) is defined as normal office blood pressure (OBP) and elevated ambulatory (ABP) or home blood pressure (HBP). This study assessed MH identified by each of these two methods. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data in treated and untreated adults from Greece, Finland and UK who had OBP, HBP and 24-h ABP measurements was performed. Dual MH was defined as normal OBP and elevated HBP and ABP, isolated ambulatory MH as normal OBP and HBP and elevated ABP and isolated home MH as normal OBP and ABP and elevated HBP. RESULTS: Of 1971 participants analyzed, 445 (23%) had MH on ABP and/or HBP (age 57.1 ±â€Š10.8 years, men 55%, treated 49%). Among participants with any MH, 215 had dual MH (48%), 132 isolated ambulatory MH (30%) and 98 isolated home MH (22%). Moreover, 55% had high-normal, 35% normal and 10% optimal OBP. In logistic regression analysis isolated ambulatory MH was predicted by younger age (OR 0.35, P < 0.01 per 10 years increase), whereas isolated home MH was predicted by older age (OR 2.05, P < 0.01 per 10 years increase). CONCLUSION: Masked hypertension diagnosed by ABP and not HBP monitoring or the reverse is not uncommon. Age appears to be the most important determinant of isolated ambulatory or home MH, with the former being more common in younger participants and the latter in older ones. Only half of participants with MH have high-normal OBP, whereas the rest have lower levels.

Ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring: frequency and determinants of blood pressure difference and diagnostic disagreement.

OBJECTIVES: Out-of-office blood pressure evaluation assessed using ambulatory (ABP) or home (HBP) monitoring is currently recommended for hypertension management. We evaluated the frequency and determinants of diagnostic disagreement between ABP and HBP measurements. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 1971 participants (mean age 53.8 ±â€Š11.4 years, 52.6% men, 32% treated) from Greece, Finland and the United Kingdom were analyzed. The diagnostic disagreement between HBP and daytime ABP was regarded as certain when (i) the two methods diagnosed a different blood pressure phenotype, (ii) the absolute HBP-ABP difference was more than 10/5 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) and (iii) ABP and HBP had a more than 5 mmHg difference from the respective hypertension threshold. RESULTS: In 1574 participants (79.9%), there was agreement between HBP and ABP in diagnosing hypertensive phenotypes (kappa 0.70). Of the remaining 397 participants (20.1%) with diagnostic disagreement, 95 had clinically irrelevant HBP-ABP differences, which reduced the disagreement to 15.3%. When cases with ABP and/or HBP differing ≤5 mmHg from the respective hypertension threshold were excluded, the certain disagreement between the two methods was reduced to 8.2%. Significant determinants of the HBP-ABP difference were age, sex, study center, BMI, cardiovascular disease history, office hypertension and antihypertensive treatment. Antihypertensive drug treatment, alcohol consumption and office normotension independently increased the odds of diagnostic disagreement. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is considerable diagnostic agreement between HBP and ABP, and that these methods are interchangeable for clinical decisions in most patients. However, considerable disagreement between the two methods occurs in an appreciable minority, most likely due to methodological and patient-related factors.

Using mHealth for the management of hypertension in UK primary care: an embedded qualitative study of the TASMINH4 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but how telemonitoring with a mobile healthcare (mHealth) solution in the management of hypertension can be implemented by patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is currently unclear. AIM: Evaluation of facilitators and barriers to self- and telemonitoring interventions for hypertension within the Telemonitoring and Self-monitoring in Hypertension (TASMINH4) trial. DESIGN AND SETTING: An embedded process evaluation of the TASMINH4 randomised controlled trial (RCT), in the West Midlands, in UK primary care, conducted between March 2015 and September 2016. METHOD: A total of 40 participants comprising 23 patients were randomised to one of two arms: mHealth (self-monitoring by free text/short message service [SMS]) and self-monitoring without mHealth (self-monitoring using paper diaries). There were also15 healthcare professionals (HCPs) and two patient caregivers. RESULTS: Four key implementation priority areas concerned: acceptability of self- and telemonitoring to patients and HCPs; managing data; communication; and integrating self-monitoring into hypertension management (structured care). Structured home monitoring engaged and empowered patients to self-monitor regardless of the use of mHealth, whereas telemonitoring potentially facilitated more rapid communication between HCPs and patients. Paper-based recording integrated better into current workflows but required additional staff input. CONCLUSION: Although telemonitoring by mHealth facilitates easier communication and convenience, the realities of current UK general practice meant that a paper-based approach to self-monitoring could be integrated into existing workflows with greater ease. Self-monitoring should be offered to all patients with hypertension. Telemonitoring appears to give additional benefits to practices over and above self-monitoring but both need to be offered to ensure generalisability.

Schedules for Self-monitoring Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is uncertainty over the optimal self-monitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine "true" underlying blood pressure. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. RESULTS: From 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%-91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%-96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day's measurement was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Home blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring.

Patient experience of home and waiting room blood pressure measurement: a qualitative study of patients with recently diagnosed hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is advocated to confirm hypertension diagnosis. However, little is known about how primary care patients view and use such measurement. AIM: To investigate patient experience of out-of-office BP monitoring, particularly home and practice waiting room BP measurement, before, during, and after diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional, qualitative study with patients from two UK GP surgeries participating in a feasibility study of waiting room BP measurement. METHOD: Interviewees were identified from recent additions to the practice hypertension register. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically. RESULTS: Of 29 interviewees, 9 (31%) and 22 (76%) had used the waiting room monitor and/or monitored at home respectively. Out-of-office monitoring was used by patients as evidence of control or the lack of need for medication, with the printed results slips from the waiting room monitor perceived to improve 'trustworthiness'. The waiting room monitor enabled those experiencing uncertainty about their equipment or technique to double-check readings. Monitoring at home allowed a more intensive and/or flexible schedule to investigate BP fluctuations and the impact of medication and lifestyle changes. A minority used self-monitoring to inform drug holidays. Reduced intensity of monitoring was reported with both modalities following diagnosis as initial anxiety or patient and GP interest decreased. CONCLUSION: Home and practice waiting room measurements have overlapping but differing roles for patients. Waiting room BP monitors may be a useful out-of-office measurement modality for patients unwilling and/or unable to measure and record their BP at home.

Do patients actually do what we ask: patient fidelity and persistence to the Targets and Self-Management for the Control of Blood Pressure in Stroke and at Risk Groups blood pressure self-management intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Self-management of hypertension can reduce and control blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic monitoring. However, self-management relies on patients following an algorithm, which may be variably adhered to. This study reports fidelity of high-risk patients to the self-management algorithm set by the TASMIN-SR trial. METHODS: Patients with hypertension, above target clinic BP and one or more of stroke, diabetes, coronary heart disease or chronic kidney disease, were invited to self-monitor following an individualized self-titration algorithm. Home BP readings and medication change details were submitted monthly for 12 months. Readings downloaded from patients' electronic monitors were compared with written submissions, and protocol fidelity was assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-six patients were randomized to self-management and 225 (82%) completed the required training sessions. Of these, 166 (74%) completed self-management. A total of 11385 (89.6%) submitted readings were accurate compared with corresponding downloaded monitor readings. Mean error rate was 5.2% per patient, which increased with age but not comorbidities. Patients made 475 of 683 (69.5%) algorithm-recommended medication changes, equating to nearly three medication changes per patient. Mean SBP for patients who completed training and made all recommended changes dropped from 141 mmHg (95% CI 138.26-144.46) to 121 mmHg (95% CI 118.30-124.17 mmHg) compared with 129 mmHg (95% CI 125.27-136.73 mmHg) for patients who made none. CONCLUSION: Most patients randomized to self-management completed training; however, 36% of these had dropped out by 12 months. Self-monitoring was largely undertaken properly and accurately recorded. Fidelity with self-management was associated with lower achieved SBP. Successful implementation of self-management into daily practice requires careful training and should be accompanied by monitoring of fidelity.

Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366. FINDINGS: 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups. INTERPRETATION: Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Interarm Difference in Systolic Blood Pressure in Different Ethnic Groups and Relationship to the "White Coat Effect": A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Interarm differences (IADs) ≥10 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (BP) are associated with greater incidence of cardiovascular disease. The effect of ethnicity and the white coat effect (WCE) on significant systolic IADs (ssIADs) are not well understood. METHODS: Differences in BP by ethnicity for different methods of BP measurement were examined in 770 people (300 White British, 241 South Asian, 229 African-Caribbean). Repeated clinic measurements were obtained simultaneously in the right and left arm using 2 BPTru monitors and comparisons made between the first reading, mean of second and third and mean of second to sixth readings for patients with, and without known hypertension. All patients had ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). WCE was defined as systolic clinic BP ≥10 mm Hg higher than daytime ABPM. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in the prevalence of ssIAD between ethnicities whichever combinations of BP measurement were used and regardless of hypertensive status. ssIADs fell between the 1st measurement (161, 22%), 2nd/3rd (113, 16%), and 2nd-6th (78, 11%) (1st vs. 2nd/3rd and 2nd-6th, P < 0.001). Hypertensives with a WCE were more likely to have ssIADs on 1st, (odds ratio [OR] 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.04-2.86); 2nd/3rd, (OR 3.05 (1.68-5.53); and 2nd-6th measurements, (OR 2.58 (1.22-5.44). Nonhypertensive participants with a WCE were more likely to have a ssIAD on their first measurement (OR 3.82 (1.77 to -8.25) only. CONCLUSIONS: ssIAD prevalence does not vary with ethnicity regardless of hypertensive status but is affected by the number of readings, suggesting the influence of WCE. Multiple readings should be used to confirm ssIADs.

Telemonitoring and/or self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension (TASMINH4): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of hypertension is associated with lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, evidence for the use of self-monitoring to titrate antihypertensive medication by physicians is equivocal. Furthermore, there is some evidence for the efficacy of telemonitoring in the management of hypertension but it is not clear what this adds over and above self-monitoring. This trial aims to evaluate whether GP led antihypertensive titration using self-monitoring results in lower SBP compared to usual care and whether telemonitoring adds anything to self-monitoring alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-monitoring of BP with or without telemonitoring compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care, self-monitoring alone, or self-monitoring with telemonitoring. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in clinic SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP, gender, BP target and practice. At least 1110 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-monitoring with or without telemonitoring and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power with an adjusted alpha of 0.017 (2-sided) to adjust for all three pairwise comparisons. Other outcomes will include adherence of anti-hypertensive medication, lifestyle behaviours, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. An economic analysis will consider both within trial costs and a model extrapolating the results thereafter. A qualitative sub study will gain insights into the views, experiences and decision making processes of patients and health care professionals focusing on the acceptability of self-monitoring and telemonitoring in the routine management of hypertension. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-monitoring of BP in people with hypertension would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 83571366 . Registered 17 July 2014.

Measurement of blood pressure for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in different ethnic groups: one size fits all.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and prevalence varies by ethnic group. The diagnosis and management of blood pressure are informed by guidelines largely based on data from white populations. This study addressed whether accuracy of blood pressure measurement in terms of diagnosis of hypertension varies by ethnicity by comparing two measurement modalities (clinic blood pressure and home monitoring) with a reference standard of ambulatory BP monitoring in three ethnic groups. METHODS: Cross-sectional population study (June 2010 - December 2012) with patients (40-75 years) of white British, South Asian and African Caribbean background with and without a previous diagnosis of hypertension recruited from 28 primary care practices. The study compared the test performance of clinic BP (using various protocols) and home-monitoring (1 week) with a reference standard of mean daytime ambulatory measurements using a threshold of 140/90 mmHg for clinic and 135/85 mmHg for out of office measurement. RESULTS: A total of 551 participants had complete data of whom 246 were white British, 147 South Asian and 158 African Caribbean. No consistent difference in accuracy of methods of blood pressure measurement was observed between ethnic groups with or without a prior diagnosis of hypertension: for people without hypertension, clinic measurement using three different methodologies had high specificity (75-97%) but variable sensitivity (33-65%) whereas home monitoring had sensitivity of 68-88% and specificity of 64-80%. For people with hypertension, detection of a raised blood pressure using clinic measurements had sensitivities of 34-69% with specificity of 73-92% and home monitoring had sensitivity (81-88%) and specificity (55-65%). CONCLUSIONS: For people without hypertension, ABPM remains the choice for diagnosing hypertension compared to the other modes of BP measurement regardless of ethnicity. Differences in accuracy of home monitoring and clinic monitoring (higher sensitivity of the former; higher specificity of the latter) were also not affected by ethnicity.

Modern Management and Diagnosis of Hypertension in the United Kingdom: Home Care and Self-care.

BACKGROUND: The effective diagnosis and management of hypertension is one of the most important parts of cardiovascular prevention internationally and this is no different in the United Kingdom. Approximately 14% of the UK population currently receive treatment for hypertension. Recent UK guidelines from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence have placed greater emphasis on the utilization of out-of-office measurement of blood pressure to more accurately diagnose hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to provide a state-of-the-art review of the evidence for screening, diagnosing, and managing hypertension, as implemented in the United Kingdom, with an emphasis on the role of self-monitored and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in routine clinical care. METHOD: Consideration was given to the use of ambulatory and home monitoring to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension and the use of self-monitoring and self-management to monitor and guide treatment. The evidence for the use of self-monitoring in patients with hypertension was examined, both in isolation, and in combination with lifestyle and treatment interventions. FINDINGS: There is a place for self-monitored blood pressure in specific underresearched populations such as the elderly, specialist conditions, ethnic groups, and during pregnancy and this is discussed here. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting the use of out-of-office monitoring in all aspects of routine clinical care has increased substantially in recent years and is reflected in increased utilization by patients and clinicians alike. Several areas require further research but it is clear that out-of-office monitoring is here to stay and is fast becoming an important part of hypertension management in the United Kingdom.

Influence of ethnicity on acceptability of method of blood pressure monitoring: a cross-sectional study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory and/or home monitoring are recommended in the UK and the US for the diagnosis of hypertension but little is known about their acceptability. AIM: To determine the acceptability of different methods of measuring blood pressure to people from different minority ethnic groups. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study with focus groups in primary care in the West Midlands. METHOD: People of different ethnicities with and without hypertension were assessed for acceptability of clinic, home, and ambulatory blood pressure measurement using completion rate, questionnaire, and focus groups. RESULTS: A total of 770 participants were included, who were white British (n = 300), South Asian (n = 241), and African Caribbean (n = 229). White British participants had significantly higher successful completion rates across all monitoring modalities compared with the other ethnic groups, especially for ambulatory monitoring: white British (n = 277, 92% [95% confidence interval [CI] = 89% to 95%]) versus South Asian (n = 171, 71% [95% CI = 65% to 76%], P<0.001) and African Caribbean (n = 188, 82% [95% CI = 77% to 87%], P<0.001), respectively. There were significantly lower acceptability scores for minority ethnic participants across all monitoring methods compared with white British participants. Focus group results highlighted self-monitoring as most acceptable and ambulatory monitoring least acceptable without consistent differences by ethnicity. Clinic monitoring was seen as inconvenient and anxiety provoking but with the advantage of immediate professional input. CONCLUSION: Reduced acceptability and completion rates among minority ethnic groups raise important questions for the implementation and interpretation of blood pressure monitoring. Selection of method of blood pressure monitoring should take into account clinical need, patient preference, and potential cultural barriers to monitoring.

Cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in hypertensive patients over 70 years with suboptimal control and established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk diseases (TASMIN-SR).

BACKGROUND: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management. RESULTS: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year. CONCLUSION: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.

What is the evidence base for diagnosing hypertension and for subsequent blood pressure treatment targets in the prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Diagnosing and treating hypertension plays an important role in minimising the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Early and accurate diagnosis of hypertension, as well as regular monitoring, is essential to meet treatment targets. In this article, current recommendations for the screening and diagnosis of hypertension are reviewed. The evidence for treatment targets specified in contemporary guidelines is evaluated and recommendations from the USA, Canada, Europe and the UK are compared. Finally, consideration is given as to how diagnosis and management of hypertension might develop in the future.

Ethnicity and differences between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the relationship of ethnicity to the differences between blood pressure (BP) measured in a clinic setting and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in individuals with a previous diagnosis of hypertension (HT) and without a previous diagnosis of hypertension (NHT). METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison of BP measurement was performed in 770 participants (white British (WB, 39%), South Asian (SA, 31%), and African Caribbean (AC, 30%)) in 28 primary care clinics in West Midlands, United Kingdom. Mean differences between daytime ABPM, standardized clinic (mean of 3 occasions), casual clinic (first reading on first occasion), and last routine BP taken at the general practitioner practice were compared in HT and NHT individuals. RESULTS: Daytime systolic and diastolic ABPM readings were similar to standardized clinic BP (systolic: 128 (SE 0.9) vs. 125 (SE 0.9) mm Hg (NHT) and 132 (SE 0.7) vs. 131 (SE 0.7) mm Hg (HT)) and were not associated with ethnicity to a clinically important extent. When BP was taken less carefully, differences emerged: casual clinic readings were higher than ABPM, particularly in the HT group where the systolic differences approached clinical relevance (131 (SE 1.2) vs. 129 (SE 1.0) mm Hg (NHT) and 139 (SE 0.9) vs. 133 (SE 0.7) mm Hg (HT)) and were larger in SA and AC hypertensive individuals (136 (SE 1.5) vs. 133 (SE 1.2) mm Hg (WB), 141 (SE 1.7) vs. 133 (SE 1.4) mm Hg (SA), and 142 (SE 1.6) vs. 134 (SE 1.3) mm Hg (AC); mean differences: 3 (0-7), P = 0.03 and 4 (1-7), P = 0.01, respectively). Differences were also observed for the last practice reading in SA and ACs. CONCLUSIONS: BP differences between ethnic groups where BP is carefully measured on multiple occasions are small and unlikely to alter clinical management. When BP is measured casually on a single occasion or in routine care, differences appear that could approach clinical relevance.

Effect of self-monitoring and medication self-titration on systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: the TASMIN-SR randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) results in lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension, but there are no data about patients in high-risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care on systolic blood pressure among patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A primary care, unblinded, randomized clinical trial involving 552 patients who were aged at least 35 years with a history of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease and with baseline blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg being treated at 59 UK primary care practices was conducted between March 2011 and January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Self-monitoring of blood pressure combined with an individualized self-titration algorithm. During the study period, the office visit blood pressure measurement target was 130/80 mm Hg and the home measurement target was 120/75 mm Hg. Control patients received usual care consisting of seeing their health care clinician for routine blood pressure measurement and adjustment of medication if necessary. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure between intervention and control groups at the 12-month office visit. RESULTS: Primary outcome data were available from 450 patients (81%). The mean baseline blood pressure was 143.1/80.5 mm Hg in the intervention group and 143.6/79.5 mm Hg in the control group. After 12 months, the mean blood pressure had decreased to 128.2/73.8 mm Hg in the intervention group and to 137.8/76.3 mm Hg in the control group, a difference of 9.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.7-12.7) in systolic and 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.8-5.0) in diastolic blood pressure following correction for baseline blood pressure. Multiple imputation for missing values gave similar results: the mean baseline was 143.5/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 144.2/79.9 mm Hg in the control group, and at 12 months, the mean was 128.6/73.6 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 138.2/76.4 mm Hg in the control group, with a difference of 8.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-12.7) for systolic and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.7-5.5) for diastolic blood pressure between groups. These results were comparable in all subgroups, without excessive adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care resulted in lower systolic blood pressure at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN87171227.

Reliability of cone counts using an adaptive optics retinal camera.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reproducibility and repeatability of cone imaging in healthy human eyes, using the RTx-1 Adaptive Optics Retinal Camera and its proprietary cone-counting software. DESIGN: Single-centre, prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Ten healthy adults. METHODS: Macular cones were imaged. Intrasession repeatability was assessed by comparing 10 consecutive acquisitions obtained by the same operator from each subject. For the intersession study, each subject was imaged five consecutive days. Interoperator reproducibility was also evaluated by comparing the images obtained from 10 different subjects by two independent operators. Finally, intergrader agreement was evaluated by comparing the cone counts measured by two masked graders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean cone density (cells/mm(2) ), spacing between cells (µm) and percentage of cones with six neighbours calculated on Voronoi diagrams were measured. Correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients, and coefficients of variation were calculated. RESULTS: Correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient were respectively 0.81 and 0.96 between operators, and 0.97 and 0.98 between the two graders. The intrasession and intersession coefficients of variation were under 7%. The percentage of cells with six neighbours and the spacing between cones varied in the same proportion (coefficients of variation ranged from 1.66 to 10.05%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the test-retest variability of RTx-1 and its software was good in normal human eyes. Further studies in the normal clinical setting are mandatory.