OBJECTIVES: Hypertension is common among patients with dyslipidemia but is often poorly treated. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate how a decision aid, used by primary care physicians to improve lipid therapy, impacted on the treatment of hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Data were analyzed from patients enrolled in a randomized trial focusing primarily on the treatment of dyslipidemia. Patients received usual care or a coronary risk profile every three months to monitor the risk reduction following lifestyle changes and/or pharmacotherapy to treat dyslipidemia. Hypertension management was assessed based on a post hoc analysis of individuals whose blood pressure exceeded current national hypertension guidelines. RESULTS: There were 2,631 subjects who completed the study. Among 1,352 patients without diagnosed hypertension, 30% were above target on at least three consecutive visits. Among 1,279 individuals with known hypertension, 69% were above target on at least two consecutive visits. Overall, patients receiving risk profiles were more likely to receive appropriate antihypertensive therapy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.78) compared to those receiving usual care. After adjustment for inter-physician variability and potential confounders, the use of the risk profile was associated with an increased likelihood of starting therapy (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-3.00) or modifying therapy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial of dyslipidemia management, inadequately controlled hypertension was common, occurring in nearly 50% of individuals. Ongoing coronary risk assessment was associated with more appropriate blood pressure management. Cardiovascular risk assessment decision aids should be further evaluated in a randomized trial of hypertension therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Hypertension is common among patients with dyslipidemia but is often poorly treated. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate how a decision aid, used by primary care physicians to improve lipid therapy, impacted on the treatment of hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Data were analyzed from patients enrolled in a randomized trial focusing primarily on the treatment of dyslipidemia. Patients received usual care or a coronary risk profile every three months to monitor the risk reduction following lifestyle changes and/or pharmacotherapy to treat dyslipidemia. Hypertension management was assessed based on a post hoc analysis of individuals whose blood pressure exceeded current national hypertension guidelines. RESULTS: There were 2,631 subjects who completed the study. Among 1,352 patients without diagnosed hypertension, 30% were above target on at least three consecutive visits. Among 1,279 individuals with known hypertension, 69% were above target on at least two consecutive visits. Overall, patients receiving risk profiles were more likely to receive appropriate antihypertensive therapy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.78) compared to those receiving usual care. After adjustment for inter-physician variability and potential confounders, the use of the risk profile was associated with an increased likelihood of starting therapy (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-3.00) or modifying therapy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial of dyslipidemia management, inadequately controlled hypertension was common, occurring in nearly 50% of individuals. Ongoing coronary risk assessment was associated with more appropriate blood pressure management. Cardiovascular risk assessment decision aids should be further evaluated in a randomized trial of hypertension therapy.
Authors: Thomas A Pearson; Steven N Blair; Stephen R Daniels; Robert H Eckel; Joan M Fair; Stephen P Fortmann; Barry A Franklin; Larry B Goldstein; Philip Greenland; Scott M Grundy; Yuling Hong; Nancy Houston Miller; Ronald M Lauer; Ira S Ockene; Ralph L Sacco; James F Sallis; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Guy De Backer; Ettore Ambrosioni; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Carlos Brotons; Renata Cifkova; Jean Dallongeville; Shah Ebrahim; Ole Faergeman; Ian Graham; Giuseppe Mancia; Volkert Manger Cats; Kristina Orth-Gomér; Joep Perk; Kalevi Pyörälä; José L Rodicio; Susana Sans; Vedat Sansoy; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Troels Thomsen; David Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nadia A Khan; Finlay A McAlister; Norman R C Campbell; Ross D Feldman; Simon Rabkin; Jeff Mahon; Richard Lewanczuk; Kelly B Zarnke; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Marcel Lebel; Mitchell Levine; Carol Herbert Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Kunal N Karmali; Stephen D Persell; Pablo Perel; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark A Berendsen; Mark D Huffman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Rajdeep S Padwal; Miriam Fradette; Ann Thompson; Ross Tsuyuki; Steven A Grover; Naeem Dean; Ashfaq Shuaib Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Elisabeth Joye Petr; Colby R Ayers; Ambarish Pandey; James A de Lemos; Tiffany M Powell-Wiley; Amit Khera; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Jarett D Berry Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Holly O Witteman; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Nicole Exe; Mark Dickson; Lisa Holtzman; Valerie C Kahn; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Emma Wallace; Maike J M Uijen; Barbara Clyne; Atieh Zarabzadeh; Claire Keogh; Rose Galvin; Susan M Smith; Tom Fahey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Juliet A Usher-Smith; Barbora Silarova; Ewoud Schuit; Karel G M Moons; Simon J Griffin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 2.692