BACKGROUND: Treated but uncontrolled hypertension is highly prevalent in African American and Hispanic communities. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness on blood pressure of home blood pressure monitors alone or in combination with follow-up by a nurse manager. DESIGN: Randomized controlled effectiveness trial. PATIENTS: Four hundred and sixteen African American or Hispanic patients with a history of uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with blood pressure ≥150/95, or ≥140/85 for patients with diabetes or renal disease, at enrollment were recruited from one community clinic and four hospital outpatient clinics in East and Central Harlem, New York City. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive usual care or a home blood pressure monitor plus one in-person counseling session and 9 months of telephone follow-up with a registered nurse. During the trial, the home monitor alone arm was added. MAIN MEASURES: Change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 9 and 18 months. KEY RESULTS: Changes from baseline to 9 months in systolic blood pressure relative to usual care was -7.0 mm Hg (Confidence Interval [CI], -13.4 to -0.6) in the nurse management plus home blood pressure monitor arm, and +1.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -5.5 to 7.8) in the home blood pressure monitor only arm. No statistically significant differences in systolic blood pressure were observed among treatment arms at 18 months. No statistically significant improvements in diastolic blood pressure were found across treatment arms at 9 or 18 months. Changes in prescribing practices did not explain the decrease in blood pressure in the nurse management arm. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse management intervention combining an in-person visit, periodic phone calls, and home blood pressure monitoring over 9 months was associated with a statistically significant reduction in systolic, but not diastolic, blood pressure compared to usual care in a high risk population. Home blood pressure monitoring alone was no more effective than usual care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Treated but uncontrolled hypertension is highly prevalent in African American and Hispanic communities. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness on blood pressure of home blood pressure monitors alone or in combination with follow-up by a nurse manager. DESIGN: Randomized controlled effectiveness trial. PATIENTS: Four hundred and sixteen African American or Hispanic patients with a history of uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with blood pressure ≥150/95, or ≥140/85 for patients with diabetes or renal disease, at enrollment were recruited from one community clinic and four hospital outpatient clinics in East and Central Harlem, New York City. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive usual care or a home blood pressure monitor plus one in-person counseling session and 9 months of telephone follow-up with a registered nurse. During the trial, the home monitor alone arm was added. MAIN MEASURES: Change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 9 and 18 months. KEY RESULTS: Changes from baseline to 9 months in systolic blood pressure relative to usual care was -7.0 mm Hg (Confidence Interval [CI], -13.4 to -0.6) in the nurse management plus home blood pressure monitor arm, and +1.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -5.5 to 7.8) in the home blood pressure monitor only arm. No statistically significant differences in systolic blood pressure were observed among treatment arms at 18 months. No statistically significant improvements in diastolic blood pressure were found across treatment arms at 9 or 18 months. Changes in prescribing practices did not explain the decrease in blood pressure in the nurse management arm. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse management intervention combining an in-person visit, periodic phone calls, and home blood pressure monitoring over 9 months was associated with a statistically significant reduction in systolic, but not diastolic, blood pressure compared to usual care in a high risk population. Home blood pressure monitoring alone was no more effective than usual care.
Authors: Hayden B Bosworth; Tara Dudley; Maren K Olsen; Corrine I Voils; Benjamin Powers; Mary K Goldstein; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Am J Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: D R Berlowitz; A S Ash; E C Hickey; R H Friedman; M Glickman; B Kader; M A Moskowitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-12-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Beverly B Green; Andrea J Cook; James D Ralston; Paul A Fishman; Sheryl L Catz; James Carlson; David Carrell; Lynda Tyll; Eric B Larson; Robert S Thompson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hayden B Bosworth; Maren K Olsen; Janet M Grubber; Alice M Neary; Melinda M Orr; Benjamin J Powers; Martha B Adams; Laura P Svetkey; Shelby D Reed; Yanhong Li; Rowena J Dolor; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Katherine T Mills; Katherine M Obst; Wei Shen; Sandra Molina; Hui-Jie Zhang; Hua He; Lisa A Cooper; Jiang He Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Maxwell D Anderegg; Tyler H Gums; Liz Uribe; Christopher S Coffey; Paul A James; Barry L Carter Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Lesli E Skolarus; Joan Cowdery; Mackenzie Dome; Sarah Bailey; Jonggyu Baek; James Brian Byrd; Sarah E Hartley; Staci C Valley; Sima Saberi; Natalie C Wheeler; Mollie McDermott; Rebecca Hughes; Krithika Shanmugasundaram; Lewis B Morgenstern; Devin L Brown Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2017-06-05
Authors: Maxime Dougados; Martin Soubrier; Anna Antunez; Peter Balint; Alejandro Balsa; Maya H Buch; Gustavo Casado; Jacqueline Detert; Bassel El-Zorkany; Paul Emery; Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni; Masayoshi Harigai; Shue-Fen Luo; Reka Kurucz; Gabriel Maciel; Emilio Martin Mola; Carlo Maurizio Montecucco; Iain McInnes; Helga Radner; Josef S Smolen; Yeong-Wook Song; Harald Erwin Vonkeman; Kevin Winthrop; Jonathan Kay Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 19.103