Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home: A Joint Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Medical Association.

The diagnosis and management of hypertension, a common cardiovascular risk factor among the general population, have been based primarily on the measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the office. BP may differ considerably when measured in the office and when measured outside of the office setting, and higher out-of-office BP is associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of office BP. Self-measured BP monitoring, the measurement of BP by an individual outside of the office at home, is a validated approach for out-of-office BP measurement. Several national and international hypertension guidelines endorse self-measured BP monitoring. Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension. Validated self-measured BP monitoring devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement and monitoring protocol should be followed. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials indicates that self-measured BP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits of self-measured BP monitoring are greatest when done along with cointerventions. The addition of self-measured BP monitoring to office BP monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care among individuals with high office BP. The use of self-measured BP monitoring is commonly reported by both individuals and providers. Therefore, self-measured BP monitoring has high potential for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the United States. Randomized controlled trials examining the impact of self-measured BP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed. To adequately address barriers to the implementation of self-measured BP monitoring, financial investment is needed in the following areas: improving education and training of individuals and providers, building health information technology capacity, incorporating self-measured BP readings into clinical performance measures, supporting cointerventions, and enhancing reimbursement.

Blood Pressure Measurement: A KDOQI Perspective.

The majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated blood pressure (BP). In patients with CKD, hypertension is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, progression of CKD, and all-cause mortality. New guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend new thresholds and targets for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in patients with and without CKD. A new aspect of the guidelines is the recommendation for measurement of out-of-office BP to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and guide therapy. In this KDOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) perspective, we review the recommendations for accurate BP measurement in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring. Regardless of location, validated devices and appropriate cuff sizes should be used. In the clinic and at home, proper patient preparation and positioning are critical. Patients should receive information about the importance of BP measurement techniques and be encouraged to advocate for adherence to guideline recommendations. Implementing appropriate BP measurement in routine practice is feasible and should be incorporated in system-wide efforts to improve the care of patients with hypertension. Hypertension is the number 1 chronic disease risk factor in the world; BP measurements in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring should adhere to recommendations from the AHA.

[Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood Pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension GroupOtimização do desempenho do observador na medição clínica da pressão arterial: posicionamento do Grupo da Lancet Commission on Hypertension]. / Optimización del desempeño del observador al medir la presión arterial en el consultorio: declaración de posición de la Comisión Lancet de Hipertensión.

High blood pressure (BP) is a highly prevalent modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Accurate BP measurement is critical, given that a 5-mmHg measurement error may lead to incorrect hypertension status classification in 84 million individuals worldwide. This position statement summarizes procedures for optimizing observer performance in clinic BP measurement, with special attention given to low-tomiddle- income settings, where resource limitations, heavy workloads, time constraints, and lack of electrical power make measurement more challenging. Many measurement errors can be minimized by appropriate patient preparation and standardized techniques. Validated semi-automated/automated upper arm cuff devices should be used instead of auscultation to simplify measurement and prevent observer error. Task sharing, creating a dedicated measurement workstation, and using semi-automated or solar-charged devices may help. Ensuring observer training, and periodic re-training, is critical. Low-cost, easily accessible certification programs should be considered to facilitate best BP measurement practice.

A hipertensão é uma causa altamente prevalente de doença cardiovascular, acidente vascular cerebral e morte. A medição precisa da pressão arterial (PA) é um aspecto crítico, uma vez que erros de mensuração da ordem de 5 mmHg podem levar a uma classificação incorreta do status de hipertensão em 84 milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo. O presente posicionamento resume os procedimentos para otimizar o desempenho do observador (o indivíduo responsável pela mensuração da PA) na mensuração clínica da PA, com atenção especial para contextos de baixa a média renda, onde recursos limitados, cargas de trabalho pesadas, restrições de tempo e falta de energia elétrica tornam mais desafiadora a tarefa de medir a PA. Muitos erros de mensuração podem ser minimizados pela preparação adequada do paciente e pelo uso de técnicas padronizadas. Para simplificar a mensuração e evitar erros do observador, devem-se utilizar dispositivos semiautomatizados ou automatizados validados, com manguito para braço, ao invés de auscultação. O compartilhamento de tarefas, a criação de uma estação de trabalho dedicada à mensuração e o uso de dispositivos semiautomatizados ou com carga solar podem ajudar. É essencial que seja assegurado o treinamento e retreinamento periódico do observador. Programas de certificação de baixo custo e de fácil acesso devem ser considerados para facilitar a adoção das melhores práticas na mensuração da PA.

[Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group position statement on the global improvement of accuracy standards for devices that measure blood pressurePosicionamento do Grupo da Lancet Commission on Hypertension sobre a melhoria global dos padrões de acurácia para aparelhos que medem a pressão arterial]. / Declaración de posición del Grupo de la Comisión Lancet de Hipertensión con respecto a la mejora mundial de las normas de exactitud para los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial.

The Lancet Commission on Hypertension identified that a key action to address the worldwide burden of high blood pressure (BP) was to improve the quality of BP measurements by using BP devices that have been validated for accuracy. Currently, there are over 3 000 commercially available BP devices, but many do not have published data on accuracy testing according to established scientific standards. This problem is enabled through weak or absent regulations that allow clearance of devices for commercial use without formal validation. In addition, new BP technologies have emerged (e.g. cuffless sensors) for which there is no scientific consensus regarding BP measurement accuracy standards. Altogether, these issues contribute to the widespread availability of clinic and home BP devices with limited or uncertain accuracy, leading to inappropriate hypertension diagnosis, management and drug treatment on a global scale. The most significant problems relating to the accuracy of BP devices can be resolved by the regulatory requirement for mandatory independent validation of BP devices according to the universally-accepted International Organization for Standardization Standard. This is a primary recommendation for which there is an urgent international need. Other key recommendations are development of validation standards specifically for new BP technologies and online lists of accurate devices that are accessible to consumers and health professionals. Recommendations are aligned with WHO policies on medical devices and universal healthcare. Adherence to recommendations would increase the global availability of accurate BP devices and result in better diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, thus decreasing the worldwide burden from high BP.

A Comissão Lancet sobre Hipertensão Arterial identificou que uma iniciativa central para enfrentar a carga mundial da hipertensão arterial seria a melhoria na qualidade da mensuração da pressão arterial pelo uso aparelhos de pressão arterial validados quanto à acurácia. Atualmente, existem mais de 3 000 aparelhos de pressão arterial disponíveis comercialmente; entretanto, muitos não têm dados publicados sobre testes de acurácia realizados de acordo com padrões científicos estabelecidos. Este problema resulta de regulamentação fraca ou inexistente, o que permite a aprovação para uso comercial de dispositivos sem validação formal. Além disso, surgiram novas tecnologias de mensuração da pressão arterial (por exemplo, sensores sem algemas) sem consenso científico quanto aos padrões de acurácia. No conjunto, essas questões contribuem para a oferta generalizada de dispositivos de pressão arterial clínica e domiciliar com acurácia limitada ou incerta, levando a diagnóstico, gerenciamento e tratamento inadequados da hipertensão em escala global. Os problemas mais significativos relacionados com a acurácia dos dispositivos de pressão arterial podem ser resolvidos por regulamentação que imponha a obrigatoriedade de validação independente dos aparelhos de pressão arterial, de acordo com a norma universalmente aceita pela Organização Internacional de Normalização. Esta é uma recomendação fundamental para a qual existe uma necessidade internacional urgente. Outras recomendações essenciais incluem o desenvolvimento de padrões de validação especificamente para novas tecnologias de mensuração da pressão arterial e listas on-line de aparelhos com acurácia adequada que sejam acessíveis aos consumidores e profissionais de saúde. As recomendações estão alinhadas com as políticas da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) sobre dispositivos médicos e atenção universal à saúde. A adesão às recomendações aumentaria a oferta global de dispositivos de pressão arterial com acurácia adequada e resultaria em melhor diagnóstico e tratamento da hipertensão arterial, diminuindo assim a carga mundial dessa doença.

CDC Grand Rounds: A Public Health Approach to Detect and Control Hypertension.

Hypertension is generally defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg. A person who currently uses blood pressure-lowering medication is also defined as having hypertension. Hypertension is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke (1,2). Hypertension affects nearly one third of U.S. residents aged ≥18 years (approximately 75 million persons), and in approximately one half of adults with hypertension (nearly 35 million persons), it is uncontrolled (2). Among these 35 million U.S. residents with uncontrolled hypertension, 33% (11.5 million persons) are not aware of their hypertension, 20% (7 million persons) are aware of their hypertension, but are not being treated for it, and approximately 47% (16.1 million persons) are aware of their hypertension and being treated for it, but treatment (by medication and/or lifestyle modification) is not adequately controlling their blood pressure (Figure) (2).

A technology-based quality innovation to identify undiagnosed hypertension among active primary care patients.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to develop a technology-based strategy to identify patients with undiagnosed hypertension in 23 primary care practices and integrate this innovation into a continuous quality improvement initiative in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: In phase 1, we reviewed electronic health records (EHRs) using algorithms designed to identify patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension. We then invited each at-risk patient to complete an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) protocol. In phase 2, we instituted a quality improvement process that included regular physician feedback and office-based computer alerts to evaluate at-risk patients not screened in phase 1. Study patients were observed for 24 additional months to determine rates of diagnostic resolution. RESULTS: Of the 1,432 patients targeted for inclusion in the study, 475 completed the AOBP protocol during the 6 months of phase 1. Of the 1,033 at-risk patients who remained active during phase 2, 740 (72%) were classified by the end of the follow-up period: 361 had hypertension diagnosed, 290 had either white-coat hypertension, prehypertension, or elevated blood pressure diagnosed, and 89 had normal blood pressure. By the end of the follow-up period, 293 patients (28%) had not been classified and remained at risk for undiagnosed hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Our technology-based innovation identified a large number of patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension and successfully classified the majority, including many with hypertension. This innovation has been implemented as an ongoing quality improvement initiative in our medical group and continues to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of hypertension among primary care patients.

Greater use of antihypertensive medications explains lower blood pressures and better control in statin-treated than statin-eligible untreated adults.

OBJECTIVE: Statins appear to have greater antihypertensive effects in observational studies than in randomized controlled trials. This study assessed whether more frequent treatment of hypertension contributed to better blood pressure (BP, mmHg) control in statin-treated than statin-eligible untreated adults in observational studies. METHODS: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009-2020 data were analyzed for adults 21-75 years ( N  = 3814) with hypertension (BP ≥140/≥90 or treatment). The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline defined statin eligibility. The main analysis compared BP values and hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in statin-treated and statin-eligible but untreated adults. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of statin therapy to hypertension control and the contribution of antihypertensive therapy to that relationship. RESULTS: Among adults with hypertension in 2009-2020, 30.3% were not statin-eligible, 36.9% were on statins, and 32.8% were statin-eligible but not on statins. Statin-treated adults were more likely to be aware of (93.4 vs. 80.6%) and treated (91.4 vs. 70.7%) for hypertension than statin-eligible adults not on statins. The statin-treated group had 8.3 mmHg lower SBP (130.3 vs. 138.6), and 22.8% greater control (<140/<90: 69.0 vs. 46.2%; all P values <0.001). The association between statin therapy and hypertension control [odds ratio 1.94 (95% confidence interval 1.53-2.47)] in multivariable logistic regression was not significant after also controlling for antihypertensive therapy [1.29 (0.96-1.73)]. CONCLUSION: Among adults with hypertension, statin-treated adults have lower BP and better control than statin-eligible untreated adults, which largely reflects differences in antihypertensive therapy.

Age and Comorbidities Are Associated With Therapeutic Inertia Among Older Adults With Uncontrolled Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Lack of initiation or escalation of blood pressure (BP) lowering medication when BP is uncontrolled, termed therapeutic inertia (TI), increases with age and may be influenced by comorbidities. METHODS: We examined the association of age and comorbidities with TI in 22,665 visits with a systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg among 7,415 adults age ≥65 years receiving care in clinics that implemented a hypertension quality improvement program. Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine the association of comorbidity number with TI by age group (65-74 and ≥75 years) after covariate adjustment. RESULTS: Baseline mean age was 75.0 years (SD 7.8); 41.4% were male. TI occurred in 79.0% and 83.7% of clinic visits in age groups 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. In age group 65-74 years, prevalence ratio of TI with 2, 3-4, and ≥5 comorbidities compared with zero comorbidities was 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04, 1.12), 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.12), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.20), respectively. The number of comorbidities was not associated with TI prevalence in age group ≥75 years. After implementation of the improvement program, TI declined from 80.3% to 77.2% in age group 65-74 years and from 85.0% to 82.0% in age group ≥75 years (P < 0.001 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: TI was common among older adults but not associated with comorbidities after age ≥75 years. A hypertension improvement program had limited impact on TI in older patients.

Target: BP™: A National Initiative to Improve Blood Pressure Control.

TARGET: BP™ is a national initiative launched by the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association in 2017 in response to the high prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) in the United States. TARGET: BP™ provides support to health care organizations and health care teams, with no user fees, to improve the quality of care for adults with hypertension by providing education and resources and recognizing organizations committed to prioritizing and reporting their rate of BP control. Through Target: BP™, the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association also collaborate to align policy with evidence through federal, state, and institutional policy advocacy and raise public awareness through media campaigns. In 2022, Target: BP™ recognized 1309 health care organizations serving 8.4 million patients with hypertension for prioritizing BP control, 675 of which affirmed performance of evidence-based BP measurement activities and 551 of which reported BP control rates ≥70%. With the proportion of US adults with controlled BP falling to 48.2% from 2017 to 2020, Target: BP™ remains focused on regaining lost ground in national BP control rates by emphasizing accurate BP measurement, rapid treatment intensification, healthful lifestyle changes, and evidence-based use of self-measured BP monitoring. TARGET: BP™ also emphasizes adoption of team-based care models and prioritizing equitable health outcomes. More than 1.37 million unique users have visited https://targetbp.org/ and downloaded 98 341 Target: BP™ resources from 2017 to 2022.

Improvement in Hypertension Control Among Adults Seen in Federally Qualified Health Center Clinics in the Stroke Belt: Implementing a Program with a Dashboard and Process Metrics.

Objective: Attain 75% hypertension (HTN) control and improve racial equity in control with the American Medical Association Measure accurately, Act rapidly, Partner with patients blood pressure (AMA MAP BP™) quality improvement program, including a monthly dashboard and practice facilitation. Methods: Eight federally qualified health center clinics from the HopeHealth network in South Carolina participated. Clinic staff received monthly practice facilitation guided by a dashboard with process metrics (measure [repeat BP when initial systolic ≥140 or diastolic ≥90 mmHg; Act [number antihypertensive medication classes prescribed at standard dose or greater to adults with uncontrolled BP]; Partner [follow-up within 30 days of uncontrolled BP; systolic BP fall after medication added]) and outcome metric (BP <140/<90). Electronic health record data were obtained on adults ≥18 years at baseline and monthly during MAP BP. Patients with diagnosed HTN, ≥1 encounter at baseline, and ≥2 encounters during 6 months of MAP BP were included in this evaluation. Results: Among 45,498 adults with encounters during the 1-year baseline, 20,963 (46.1%) had diagnosed HTN; 12,370 (59%) met the inclusion criteria (67% black, 29% white; mean (standard deviation) age 59.5 (12.8) years; 16.3% uninsured. HTN control improved (63.6% vs. 75.1%, p<0.0001), reflecting positive changes in Measure, Act, and Partner metrics (all p<0.001), although control remained lower in non-Hispanic black than in non-Hispanic white adults (73.8% vs. 78.4%, p<0.001). Conclusions: With MAP BP, the HTN control goal was attained among adults eligible for analysis. Ongoing efforts aim to improve program access and racial equity in control.

Long-Term Results of a Digital Hypertension Self-Management Program: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health programs that incorporate frequent blood pressure (BP) self-monitoring and support for behavior change offer a scalable solution for hypertension management. OBJECTIVE: We examined the impact of a digital hypertension self-management and lifestyle change support program on BP over 12 months. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a retrospective observational cohort of commercially insured members (n=1117) that started the Omada for Hypertension program between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. Paired t tests and linear regression were used to measure the changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) over 12 months overall and by SBP control status at baseline (≥130 mm Hg vs <130 mm Hg). RESULTS: Members were on average 50.9 years old, 50.8% (n=567) of them were female, 60.5% (n=675) of them were White, and 70.5% (n=788) of them had uncontrolled SBP at baseline (≥130 mm Hg). At 12 months, all members (including members with controlled and uncontrolled BP at baseline) and those with uncontrolled SBP at baseline experienced significant mean reductions in SBP (mean -4.8 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.6 to -4.0; -8.1 mm Hg, 95% CI -9.0 to -7.1, respectively; both P<.001). Members with uncontrolled SBP at baseline also had significant reductions in diastolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg; 95% CI -5.3 to -4.1), weight (-6.5 lbs, 95% CI -7.7 to -5.3; 2.7% weight loss), and BMI (-1.1 kg/m2; 95% CI -1.3 to -0.9; all P<.001). Those with controlled SBP at baseline maintained within BP goal range. Additionally, 48% (418/860) of members with uncontrolled BP at baseline experienced enough change in BP to improve their BP category. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence that a comprehensive digital health program involving hypertension education, at-home BP monitoring, and behavior change coaching support was effective for self-managing hypertension over 12 months.

Global proliferation and clinical consequences of non-validated automated BP devices.

Professional societies, guideline writing committees, and other interested parties emphasize the importance of accurate measurement of blood pressure for clinical and public health decisions related to prevention, treatment, and follow-up of high blood pressure. Use of a clinically validated instrument to measure blood pressure is a central component of measurement accuracy and precision. Despite this, most regulatory authorities do not specify validation requirements that manufacturers must meet to sell their blood pressure measurement devices. Likewise, device validity is not a major area of focus for most consumers and healthcare providers, perhaps because they assume it is a pre-requisite for market approval. This has led to a global proliferation of non-validated blood pressure measurement devices, with only a small minority of blood pressure measurement devices having passed internationally accepted validation protocols. The clinical consequences are likely to be significant because non-validated devices are more likely to provide inaccurate estimates of blood pressure compared with validated devices. Even small inaccuracies in blood pressure measurement can result in substantial misdiagnosis and mistreatment of hypertension. There is an urgent need for clinical validation of blood pressure measurement devices prior to marketing them to consumers. There is also need for simplification of the process for consumers and healthcare providers to determine whether a blood pressure measurement device has successfully met an internationally accepted test of validity.

How to find and use validated blood pressure measuring devices.

Clinically validated, automated arm-cuff blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs) are recommended for BP measurement. However, most BPMDs available for purchase by consumers globally are not properly validated. This is a problem because non-validated BPMDs are less accurate and precise than validated ones, and therefore if used clinically could lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of BP. In response to this problem, several validated device lists have been developed, which can be used by clinicians and consumers to identify devices that have passed clinical validation testing. The purpose of this review is to describe the resources that are available for finding validated BPMDs in different world regions, to identify the differences between validated device lists, and describe current gaps and challenges. How to use validated BPMDs properly is also summarised.

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

Seasonal variation in blood pressure control across US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. METHODS: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. RESULTS: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ±â€Š0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ±â€Š0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ±â€Š2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ±â€Š0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. CONCLUSION: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.

Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). RESULTS: Among 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to <130/<80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020). CONCLUSION: BP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events.

Cost-Effectiveness of Recommendations From the Surgeon General's Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension.

In response to high prevalence of hypertension and suboptimal rates of blood pressure (BP) control in the United States, the Surgeon General released a Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension (Call-to-Action) in the fall of 2020 to address the negative consequences of uncontrolled BP. In addition to morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, hypertension has an annual cost to the US healthcare system of $71 billion. The Call-to-Action makes recommendations for improving BP control, and the purpose of this review was to summarize the literature on the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. We identified a number of studies that demonstrate the cost saving or cost-effectiveness of recommendations in the Call-to-Action including strategies to promote access to and availability of physical activity opportunities and healthy food options within communities, advance the use of standardized treatment approaches and guideline-recommended care, to promote the use of healthcare teams to manage hypertension, and to empower and equip patients to use self-measured BP monitoring and medication adherence strategies. While the current review identified numerous cost-effective methods to achieve the Surgeon General's recommendations for improving BP control, future work should determine the cost-effectiveness of the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Hypertension guidelines, interventions to lower therapeutic inertia, and optimal team-based care strategies, among other areas of research. Economic evaluation studies should also be prioritized to generate more comprehensive data on how to provide efficient and high value care to improve BP control.

Blood Pressure Cuff Sizes for Adults in the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2020.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension, defined as blood pressure (BP) ≥130/80 mm Hg or antihypertensive medication use, affects approximately half of US adults, and appropriately sized BP cuffs are important for accurate BP measurement and hypertension management. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed 13,038 US adults (≥18 years) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2015-March 2020 cycles. Recommended BP cuff sizes were categorized based on mid-arm circumference: small adult (≤26 cm), adult (>26 to ≤34 cm), large adult (>34 to ≤44 cm), and extra-large adult (>44 cm). Analyses were weighted and proportions were extrapolated to the US population. RESULTS: Among US adults (246 million), recommended cuff sizes were: 6% (16 million) small adult, 51% adult (125 million), 40% large adult (98 million), and 3% extra-large adult (8 million). Among adults with hypertension (116 million), large or extra-large cuffs were needed by over half (51%) overall, including 65% of those aged 18-34 years and 84% of those with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). By race/ethnicity, the proportion needing a large or extra-large cuff was 57% of non-Hispanic Black adults, 54% of Hispanic adults, 51% of non-Hispanic White adults, and 23% of non-Hispanic Asian adults. Approximately 40% of adults with hypertension in Medicare needed a large or extra-large cuff, compared to 54% for private insurance and 53% for Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of US adults with hypertension need a large or extra-large BP cuff.

Self-Reported Antihypertensive Medication Class and Temporal Relationship to Treatment Guidelines.

The greater antihypertensive responses to initial therapy with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or thiazide-type diuretics than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults was recognized in the US High BP guidelines from 1988 to 2003. The 2014 Report from Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (2014 aJNC8 Report) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline were the first to recommend CCBs or thiazide-type diuretics rather than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in NHB. We assessed the temporal relationship of these recommendations on self-reported CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy by NHB and NHW adults with hypertension absent compelling indications for ß-blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2018 versus 2007 to 2012 (after versus before 2014 aJNC8 Report). CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy was unchanged in NHW adults (17.1% versus 18.1%, P=0.711) and insignificantly higher after 2014 among NHB adults (43.7% versus 38.2%, P=0.204), although CCB monotherapy increased (29.5% versus 21.0%, P=0.021) and renin-angiotensin system blocker monotherapy fell (44.5% versus 31.0%, P=0.008). Although evidence-based CCB monotherapy increased among NHB adults in 2015 to 2018, hypertension control declined as untreated hypertension and monotherapy increased. While a gap between recommended and actual monotherapy persists, evidence-based monotherapy appears insufficient to improve hypertension control in NHB adults, especially given evidence for worsening therapeutic inertia. Initiating treatment with single-pill combinations and timely therapeutic intensification when required to control hypertension are evidence-based, race-neutral options for improving hypertension control among NHB adults.

Association of Baseline Adherence to Antihypertensive Medications With Adherence After Shelter-in-Place Guidance for COVID-19 Among US Adults.

Importance: Adherence to selected antihypertensive medications (proportion of days covered [PDC]) declined after guidance to shelter in place for COVID-19. Objectives: To determine whether PDC for all antihypertensive medications collectively fell from the 6 months before sheltering guidance (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020 [baseline]) compared with the first (March 15 to June 14, 2020) and second (June 15 to September 14, 2020) 3 months of sheltering and to assess the usefulness of baseline PDC for identifying individuals at risk for declining PDC during sheltering. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included a random sample of US adults obtained from EagleForce Health, a division of EagleForce Associates Inc. Approximately one-half of the adults were aged 40 to 64 years and one-half were aged 65 to 90 years, with prescription drug coverage, hypertension, and at least 1 antihypertensive medication prescription filled at a retail pharmacy during baseline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescription claims were used to assess (1) PDC at baseline and changes in PDC during the first and second 3 months of sheltering and (2) the association of good (PDC ≥ 80), fair (PDC 50-79), and poor (PDC < 50) baseline adherence with adherence during sheltering. Results: A total of 27 318 adults met inclusion criteria (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.7] years; 50.7% women). Mean PDC declined from baseline (65.6 [95% CI, 65.2-65.9]) during the first (63.4 [95% CI, 63.0-63.8]) and second (58.9 [95% CI, 58.5-59.3]) 3 months after sheltering in all adults combined (P < .001 for both comparisons) and both age groups separately. Good, fair, and poor baseline adherence was observed in 40.0%, 27.8%, and 32.2% of adults, respectively. During the last 3 months of sheltering, PDC declined more from baseline in those with good compared with fair baseline adherence (-13.1 [95% CI, -13.6 to -12.6] vs -8.3 [95% CI, -13.6 to -12.6]; P < .001), whereas mean (SD) PDC increased in those with poor baseline adherence (mean PDC, 31.6 [95% CI, 31.3-31.9] vs 34.4 [95% CI, 33.8-35.0]; P < .001). However, poor adherence during sheltering occurred in 1034 adults (9.5%) with good baseline adherence, 2395 (31.6%) with fair baseline adherence, and 6409 (72.9%) with poor baseline adherence. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that individuals with poor baseline adherence are candidates for adherence-promoting interventions irrespective of sheltering guidance. Interventions to prevent poor adherence during sheltering may be more useful for individuals with fair vs good baseline adherence.