Literature DB >> 22928756

Cardiac risk is not associated with hypertension treatment intensification.

Jeremy B Sussman1, Donna M Zulman, Rodney Hayward, Timothy P Hofer, Eve A Kerr.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Considering cardiovascular (CV) risk could make clinical care more efficient and individualized, but most practice guidelines focus on single risk factors. We sought to determine if hypertension treatment intensification (TI) is more likely in patients with elevated CV risk. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 856 US veterans with diabetes and elevated blood pressure (BP).
METHODS: We used multilevel logistic regression to compare TI across 3 CV risk groups: those with history of heart disease, a high-risk primary prevention group (10-year event risk >20% but no history of heart disease), and those with low/ medium CV risk (10-year event risk <20%).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in TI rates across risk groups, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.77-1.84) and 1.18 (0.76-1.83) for high-risk patients and those with a history of CVD, respectively, compared with those of low/medium risk. Several individual risk factors were associated with higher rates of TI: systolic BP, mean BP in the prior year, and higher glycated hemoglobin. Self-reported home BP <140/90 mm Hg was associated with lower rates of TI. Incorporating CV risk into TI decision algorithms could prevent an estimated 38% more cardiac events without increasing the number of treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: While an individual's BP alters clinical decisions about TI, overall CV risk does not appear to play a role in clinical decision making. Adoption of TI decision algorithms that incorporate CV risk could substantially enhance the efficiency and clinical utility of CV preventive care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22928756      PMCID: PMC3682773     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Manag Care        ISSN: 1088-0224            Impact factor:   2.229


  19 in total

Review 1.  Clinical inertia.

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

2.  Building regulatory and operational flexibility into accountable care organizations and 'shared savings'.

Authors:  Steven M Lieberman; John M Bertko
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  The relative merits of population-based and targeted prevention strategies.

Authors:  Donna M Zulman; Sandeep Vijan; Gilbert S Omenn; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  Variation in the net benefit of aggressive cardiovascular risk factor control across the US population of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Justin W Timbie; Rodney A Hayward; Sandeep Vijan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-06-28

5.  Exceptions to outpatient quality measures for coronary artery disease in electronic health records.

Authors:  Karen S Kmetik; Michael F O'Toole; Heidi Bossley; Carmen A Brutico; Gary Fischer; Sherry L Grund; Bridget M Gulotta; Mark Hennessey; Stasia Kahn; Karen M Murphy; Ted Pacheco; L Greg Pawlson; John Schaeffer; Patricia A Schwamberger; Sarah H Scholle; Gregory Wozniak
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Patient-provider concordance in the prioritization of health conditions among hypertensive diabetes patients.

Authors:  Donna M Zulman; Eve A Kerr; Timothy P Hofer; Michele Heisler; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Diminishing efficacy of combination therapy, response-heterogeneity, and treatment intolerance limit the attainability of tight risk factor control in patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Justin W Timbie; Rodney A Hayward; Sandeep Vijan
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Combination therapy versus monotherapy in reducing blood pressure: meta-analysis on 11,000 participants from 42 trials.

Authors:  David S Wald; Malcolm Law; Joan K Morris; Jonathan P Bestwick; Nicholas J Wald
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Comparison of the Framingham and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study cardiovascular risk equations in Australian patients with type 2 diabetes from the Fremantle Diabetes Study.

Authors:  Wendy A Davis; Stephen Colagiuri; Timothy M E Davis
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 7.738

10.  Prediction of coronary heart disease risk in a general, pre-diabetic, and diabetic population during 10 years of follow-up: accuracy of the Framingham, SCORE, and UKPDS risk functions: The Hoorn Study.

Authors:  Amber A W A van der Heijden; Monica M Ortegon; Louis W Niessen; Giel Nijpels; Jacqueline M Dekker
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  1 in total

1.  Understanding providers' attitudes and key concerns toward incorporating CVD risk prediction into clinical practice: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Linda Takamine; Jane Forman; Laura J Damschroder; Bradley Youles; Jeremy Sussman
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 2.655

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.