BACKGROUND: Greater treatment intensification (TI) improves hypertension control. However, we do not know the ideal way to measure TI for research and quality improvement efforts. We compared the ability of different TI measures to predict blood pressure (BP) control. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 819 hypertensive outpatients from an urban academic hospital. Each patient was assigned 3 scores to characterize TI. The any/none score divides patients into those who had any therapy increases during the study versus none. The norm-based method models the chance of a medication increase at each visit, then scores each patient based on whether they received more or fewer medication increases than predicted. The standard-based method is similar to the norm-based method but expects a medication increase whenever the blood pressure is uncontrolled. We compared the ability of these scores to predict the final systolic blood pressure (SBP). The any/none score showed a paradoxical result: any therapy increase was associated with SBP 4.6 mm Hg higher than no increase (P<0.001). The norm-based method score did not predict SBP in a linear fashion (P=0.18); further investigation revealed a U-shaped relationship between the norm-based method score and SBP. However, the standard-based method score was a strong linear predictor of SBP (2.1 mm Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, P<0.001). Similarly, the standard-based method predicted dichotomized blood pressure control, as measured by SBP <140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.30; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that standard-based method is the preferred measure of treatment intensity for hypertension care.
BACKGROUND: Greater treatment intensification (TI) improves hypertension control. However, we do not know the ideal way to measure TI for research and quality improvement efforts. We compared the ability of different TI measures to predict blood pressure (BP) control. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 819 hypertensive outpatients from an urban academic hospital. Each patient was assigned 3 scores to characterize TI. The any/none score divides patients into those who had any therapy increases during the study versus none. The norm-based method models the chance of a medication increase at each visit, then scores each patient based on whether they received more or fewer medication increases than predicted. The standard-based method is similar to the norm-based method but expects a medication increase whenever the blood pressure is uncontrolled. We compared the ability of these scores to predict the final systolic blood pressure (SBP). The any/none score showed a paradoxical result: any therapy increase was associated with SBP 4.6 mm Hg higher than no increase (P<0.001). The norm-based method score did not predict SBP in a linear fashion (P=0.18); further investigation revealed a U-shaped relationship between the norm-based method score and SBP. However, the standard-based method score was a strong linear predictor of SBP (2.1 mm Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, P<0.001). Similarly, the standard-based method predicted dichotomized blood pressure control, as measured by SBP <140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.30; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that standard-based method is the preferred measure of treatment intensity for hypertension care.
Authors: Richard Grant; Alyce S Adams; Connie Mah Trinacty; Fang Zhang; Ken Kleinman; Stephen B Soumerai; James B Meigs; Dennis Ross-Degnan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-01-26 Impact factor: 19.112
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: P Michael Ho; David J Magid; Susan M Shetterly; Kari L Olson; Pamela N Peterson; Frederick A Masoudi; John S Rumsfeld Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-02-11
Authors: Monika M Safford; Richard Shewchuk; Haiyan Qu; Jessica H Williams; Carlos A Estrada; Fernando Ovalle; Jeroan J Allison Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shari Danielle Bolen; T Alafia Samuels; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Maura McGuire; Marcela Abuid; Frederick L Brancati Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Barbara J Turner; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Mark Weiner; Thomas Ten Have; Simon S K Tang Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Adam J Rose; Stephanie L Shimada; James A Rothendler; Joel I Reisman; Peter A Glassman; Dan R Berlowitz; Nancy R Kressin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Thomas M Maddox; Colleen Ross; Heather M Tavel; Ella E Lyons; Maggie Tillquist; P Michael Ho; John S Rumsfeld; Karen L Margolis; Patrick J O'Connor; Joe V Selby; David J Magid Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-05-20
Authors: Stacie L Daugherty; J David Powers; David J Magid; Frederick A Masoudi; Karen L Margolis; Patrick J O'Connor; Julie A Schmittdiel; P Michael Ho Journal: Hypertension Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Meredith Manze; Adam J Rose; Michelle B Orner; Dan R Berlowitz; Nancy R Kressin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Phillip D Levy; Robina Josiah Willock; Michael Burla; Aaron Brody; James Mahn; Alexander Marinica; Samar A Nasser; John M Flack Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2016-10-28
Authors: Christianne L Roumie; Alan J Zillich; Dawn M Bravata; Heather A Jaynes; Laura J Myers; Joseph Yoder; Eric M Cheng Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Irene V Blair; John F Steiner; Rebecca Hanratty; David W Price; Diane L Fairclough; Stacie L Daugherty; Michael Bronsert; David J Magid; Edward P Havranek Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robina Josiah Willock; Joseph B Miller; Michelle Mohyi; Ahmed Abuzaanona; Meri Muminovic; Phillip D Levy Journal: Curr Hypertens Rep Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 5.369