OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of different interventions on therapeutic Inertia (TI) in mild-to-moderate hypertension (AHT). DESIGN: Controlled, randomised clinical trial. SETTING:Two hundred clinics in 5 primary care centres. Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1104 patients with uncontrolled hypertension were included. INTERVENTION: Four groups with 276 patients were formed: 1) Control group (CG): standard health intervention; 2) Education intervention and a program of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (EG); 3) Card control intervention and HBPM programme (CHG); 4) Education intervention, card control and HBPM programme (ECHG). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: TI was calculated by the rate: (Number of patients whose pharmacological treatment was not changed in each visit/Number of patients with an average BP 140mmHg and/or 90mmHg in the general population or 130 and/or 90 mmHg in diabetics). The mean BPs and the percentage of controlled patients were calculated. The mean number of people that required an intervention in order to avoid TI was calculated (NI). RESULTS: A total of 921 patients completed the study, and 1842 visits were made, with TI in 36.8% (IC=5.8%) of the sample and in 82.58% (IC=8.2%) of the uncontrolled hypertensive patients. The TI was 60% (CI=4.2%), 38.4% (CI=4.4%) 30.2 (CI=4.3%) and 14.7 (CI=3.3%) (p=0.001) for CG, EG, CHG and ECHG, respectively. The percentage controlled at the end of study was 35.3% (CI=1.1%), 54.7% (CI=1.8%), 60.2% (CI=2.1%) and 65.1% (CI=2.2%) (p<0.01) for CG, EG, CHG and ECHG, respectively. The NI were 4.6, 3.3 and 2.2 for CG, EG, CHG and ECHG, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TI was very significant among the uncontrolled hypertensive patients. The studied interventions are effective for improving TI.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of different interventions on therapeutic Inertia (TI) in mild-to-moderate hypertension (AHT). DESIGN: Controlled, randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Two hundred clinics in 5 primary care centres. Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1104 patients with uncontrolled hypertension were included. INTERVENTION: Four groups with 276 patients were formed: 1) Control group (CG): standard health intervention; 2) Education intervention and a program of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (EG); 3) Card control intervention and HBPM programme (CHG); 4) Education intervention, card control and HBPM programme (ECHG). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: TI was calculated by the rate: (Number of patients whose pharmacological treatment was not changed in each visit/Number of patients with an average BP 140mmHg and/or 90mmHg in the general population or 130 and/or 90 mmHg in diabetics). The mean BPs and the percentage of controlled patients were calculated. The mean number of people that required an intervention in order to avoid TI was calculated (NI). RESULTS: A total of 921 patients completed the study, and 1842 visits were made, with TI in 36.8% (IC=5.8%) of the sample and in 82.58% (IC=8.2%) of the uncontrolled hypertensivepatients. The TI was 60% (CI=4.2%), 38.4% (CI=4.4%) 30.2 (CI=4.3%) and 14.7 (CI=3.3%) (p=0.001) for CG, EG, CHG and ECHG, respectively. The percentage controlled at the end of study was 35.3% (CI=1.1%), 54.7% (CI=1.8%), 60.2% (CI=2.1%) and 65.1% (CI=2.2%) (p<0.01) for CG, EG, CHG and ECHG, respectively. The NI were 4.6, 3.3 and 2.2 for CG, EG, CHG and ECHG, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TI was very significant among the uncontrolled hypertensivepatients. The studied interventions are effective for improving TI.
Authors: L S Phillips; W T Branch; C B Cook; J P Doyle; I M El-Kebbi; D L Gallina; C D Miller; D C Ziemer; C S Barnes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: F J Alonso Moreno; J A Divisón Garrote; J L Llisterri Caro; G C Rodríguez Roca; S Lou Arnal; J R Banegas; A Raber Béjar; R de Castellar Sansó; V F Gil Guillén; M Luque Otero Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Eni C Okonofua; Kit N Simpson; Ammar Jesri; Shakaib U Rehman; Valerie L Durkalski; Brent M Egan Journal: Hypertension Date: 2006-01-23 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: David C Ziemer; Joyce P Doyle; Catherine S Barnes; William T Branch; Curtiss B Cook; Imad M El-Kebbi; Daniel L Gallina; Paul Kolm; Mary K Rhee; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-13
Authors: José R Banegas; Julián Segura; Luis M Ruilope; Manuel Luque; Rafael García-Robles; Carlos Campo; Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo; Juan Tamargo Journal: Hypertension Date: 2004-04-26 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Emilio Márquez-Contreras; Antonio Coca; Mariano de la Figuera von Wichmann; Juan Antonio Divisón; José Luis Llisterri; Javier Sobrino; Claudia Filozof; Miguel Angel Sánchez-Zamorano; Lilian Grigorian Shamagian Journal: Med Clin (Barc) Date: 2007-01-27 Impact factor: 1.725
Authors: Amy G Huebschmann; Trina Mizrahi; Alyssa Soenksen; Brenda L Beaty; Thomas D Denberg Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Carlos Sanchis Doménech; José Luis Llisterri Caro; Vicente Palomo Sanz; Francisco Javier Alonso Moreno; Isidro López Rodríguez; Armando Nevado Loro; Miguel Ángel Zamorano; Natividad Gil García; M Dolores Aguilar Conesa; Pablo Lázaro Y de Mercado Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Isidro Rodríguez-Salceda; Esperanza Escortell-Mayor; Milagros Rico-Blázquez; Rosario Riesgo-Fuertes; Angel Asúnsolo-del Barco; Antonio Valdivia-Pérez; Isabel del Cura-González; Ana B García-Cañón; María F Ortiz-Jiménez; Luisa Cabello-Ballesteros; Sofia Garrido-Elustondo; Laura Chamorro-González; Ricardo Rodríguez-Barrientos Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 3.295