Lowering blood pressure in primary care in Vienna (LOW-BP-VIENNA) : A cluster-randomized trial

Miklos Rohla, Maximilian Tscharre, Kurt Huber, Thomas W Weiss, Miklos Rohla, Maximilian Tscharre, Kurt Huber, Thomas W Weiss

Abstract

Background: In Austria only 41% of patients with treated hypertension (HTN) have their blood pressure (BP) controlled. This study investigated a strategy to improve BP control in primary care.

Methods: General practitioners (GPs) were randomized to interventional care vs. standard care and included patients with uncontrolled office BP > 140/90 mm Hg. In interventional care, antihypertensive therapy was up-titrated using a single pill combination (olmesartan, amlodipine and/or hydrochlorothiazde) in 4‑week intervals. In standard care, physicians were encouraged to treat according to the 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with controlled office BP < 140/90 mm Hg at 6 months. The main secondary endpoint was the improvement in 24 h ambulatory BP (ABPM, Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02377661).

Results: Between 2015-2017, 20 GPs contributed to patient recruitment. The trial was discontinued due to slow recruitment after inclusion of 139 eligible patients, 54 of whom were included in the interventional group. A significantly larger proportion of patients in interventional vs. standard care achieved the office BP target (67% ± 26% vs. 39% ± 29%, respectively, mean difference -27.9%, 95% confidence interval CI -54.0%; -1.7%, p = 0.038). The proportion of patients with controlled 24 h ABPM (<130/80 mm Hg) was similar between groups (49% ± 33% vs. 40% ± 34%, respectively, mean difference -8.8%, 95% CI -40.7%; 23.1%, p = 0.57). At baseline, pretreated patients received an average of 1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9 antihypertensive prescriptions. At 6 months, the respective BP reductions were achieved with 1.2 ± 0.5 prescriptions in interventional vs. 2.0 ± 1.0 in standard care (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: In both groups statistically and clinically significant BP reductions were observed after 6 months. In the interventional care group, a larger proportion of patients achieved the office BP target compared to standard care. The 24 h ambulatory blood pressure levels were controlled in 44% of patients at 6 months, without significant differences between groups. The respective BP reductions were achieved with a significantly lower medication burden in interventional care.

Keywords: Ambulatory blood pressure measurement; Arterial hypertension; Disease management programs; Hypertension control; Single pill combination drugs.

Conflict of interest statement

M. Rohla received advisory fees from Daiichi Sankyo and Novartis, and lecturing fees from Biotronik and Takeda Pharma, all outside the submitted work. K. Huber received lecturing fees and advisory honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/BMS, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly. T.W. Weiss received lecturing fees and advisory fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer/BMS. M. Tscharre declares that he has no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Prespecified titration regimen with the single pill combination drug in the interventional care group. BP blood pressure, HCT hydrochlorothiazide
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram showing the study design, the number of sites and the number of participants in each trial arm. BP blood pressure, ABPM ambulatory blood pressure measurement
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Graph showing the proportion of patients with controlled office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure levels at 6 months of follow-up. p-values are reported for differences between standard and interventional care. Additional data for control rates according to systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure levels are presented in Supplementary Table 1. BP blood pressure, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, ABPM ambulatory blood pressure measurement
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Mean office and ambulatory blood pressure reductions in standard and interventional care after 6 months of follow-up. P-values are reported for between-group differences. SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure

References

    1. Banegas JR, Lopez-Garcia E, Dallongeville J, Guallar E, Halcox JP, Borghi C, et al. Achievement of treatment goals for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice across Europe: The EURIKA study. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(17):2143–2152. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr080.
    1. Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Kramer H, Banegas JR, Giampaoli S, Joffres MR, et al. Hypertension treatment and control in five European countries, Canada, and the United States. Hypertension. 2004;43(1):10–17. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000103630.72812.10.
    1. Vrijens B, Vincze G, Kristanto P, Urquhart J, Burnier M. Adherence to prescribed antihypertensive drug treatments: Longitudinal study of electronically compiled dosing histories. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1114–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39553.670231.25.
    1. Rohla M, Haberfeld H, Tscharre M, Huber K, Weiss TW. Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in Austria: A multicentre cross-sectional study. J Hypertens. 2016;34(7):1432–1440. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000929.
    1. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R, Prospective Studies C. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: A meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360(9349):1903–1913. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11911-8.
    1. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Bohm M, et al. ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J. 2013;34(28):2159–2219. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht151.
    1. Weir MR, Hsueh WA, Nesbitt SD, Littlejohn TJ, 3rd, Graff A, Shojaee A, et al. A titrate-to-goal study of switching patients uncontrolled on antihypertensive monotherapy to fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil +/− hydrochlorothiazide. J Clin Hypertens (greenwich) 2011;13(6):404–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00437.x.
    1. Feldman RD, Zou GY, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, Nelson SA, Feagan BG. A simplified approach to the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Hypertension. 2009;53(4):646–653. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.123455.
    1. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates & proportions. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2003.
    1. Bland JM, Kerry SM. Statistics notes. Weighted comparison of means. BMJ. 1998;316(7125):129. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.129.
    1. Gupta AK, Arshad S, Poulter NR. Compliance, safety, and effectiveness of fixed-dose combinations of antihypertensive agents: A meta-analysis. Hypertension. 2010;55(2):399–407. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.139816.
    1. Schroeder K, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2:CD004804.
    1. Redon J, Mourad JJ, Schmieder RE, Volpe M, Weiss TW. Why in 2016 are patients with hypertension not 100% controlled? A call to action. J Hypertens. 2016;34(8):1480–1488. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000988.
    1. McAlister FA, Wilkins K, Joffres M, Leenen FH, Fodor G, Gee M, et al. Changes in the rates of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in Canada over the past two decades. CMAJ. 2011;183(9):1007–1013. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101767.
    1. Perl S, Niederl E, Kos C, Mrak P, Ederer H, Rakovac I, et al. Randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of a structured educational program for patients with essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2016;29(7):866–872. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpv186.
    1. Perl S, Riegelnik V, Mrak P, Ederer H, Rakovac I, Beck P, et al. Effects of a multifaceted educational program on blood pressure and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: The Austrian herz.leben project. J Hypertens. 2011;29(10):2024–2030. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834aa769.
    1. Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, D’Agostino R, Flack JM, Katzen BT, et al. A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1393–1401. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402670.
    1. de la Sierra A, Segura J, Banegas JR, Gorostidi M, de la Cruz JJ, Armario P, et al. Clinical features of 8295 patients with resistant hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2011;57(5):898–902. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.168948.
    1. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Use of automated office blood pressure measurement to reduce the white coat response. J Hypertens. 2009;27(2):280–286. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32831b9e6b.
    1. Wright JT, Jr., Williamson JD, Whelton PK, Snyder JK, Sink KM, Rocco MV, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103–2116. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939.
    1. Redon J, Ruilope LM, Schmieder RE, Weiss TW, Volpe M. Hypertension Care: It’s Time to Act. EMJ Cardiol. 2015;3(Suppl 1):2–10.
    1. Krum H, Schlaich M, Whitbourn R, Sobotka PA, Sadowski J, Bartus K, et al. Catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation for resistant hypertension: A multicentre safety and proof-of-principle cohort study. Lancet. 2009;373(9671):1275–1281. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60566-3.
    1. Townsend RR, Mahfoud F, Kandzari DE, Kario K, Pocock S, Weber MA, et al. Catheter-based renal denervation in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications (SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED): A randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10108):2160–2170. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32281-X.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere