Ian M Kronish1, Nathalie Moise2, Thomas McGinn3, Yan Quan2, William Chaplin4, Benjamin D Gallagher2, Karina W Davidson2. 1. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, PH9-311, New York, NY, 10032, USA. ik2293@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, PH9-311, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Manhasset, NY, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To appropriately manage uncontrolled hypertension, clinicians must decide whether blood pressure (BP) is above goal due to a need for additional medication or to medication nonadherence. Yet, clinicians are poor judges of adherence, and uncertainty about adherence may promote inertia with respect to medication modification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of sharing electronically-measured adherence data with clinicians on the management of uncontrolled hypertension. DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four primary care providers (12 intervention, 12 usual care; cluster units) and 100 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (65 intervention, 35 usual care) were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: At one visit per patient, clinicians in the intervention group received a report summarizing electronically measured adherence to the BP regimen and recommended clinical actions. Clinicians in the control group did not receive a report. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management (i.e., treatment intensification among adherent patients and adherence counseling among nonadherent patients). Secondary outcomes included patient-rated quality of care and communication during the visit. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management was higher in the intervention group than the control group (45 out of 65; 69 %) versus (12 out of 35; 34 %; p = 0.001). A higher proportion of adherent patients in the intervention group had their regimen intensified (p = 0.01), and a higher proportion of nonadherent patients in the intervention group received adherence counseling (p = 0.005). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to give their clinician high ratings on quality of care (p = 0.05), and on measures of patient-centered (p = 0.001) and collaborative communication (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Providing clinicians with electronically-measured antihypertensive adherence reports reduces inertia in the management of uncontrolled hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01257347 ; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT01257347.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To appropriately manage uncontrolled hypertension, clinicians must decide whether blood pressure (BP) is above goal due to a need for additional medication or to medication nonadherence. Yet, clinicians are poor judges of adherence, and uncertainty about adherence may promote inertia with respect to medication modification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of sharing electronically-measured adherence data with clinicians on the management of uncontrolled hypertension. DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four primary care providers (12 intervention, 12 usual care; cluster units) and 100 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (65 intervention, 35 usual care) were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: At one visit per patient, clinicians in the intervention group received a report summarizing electronically measured adherence to the BP regimen and recommended clinical actions. Clinicians in the control group did not receive a report. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management (i.e., treatment intensification among adherent patients and adherence counseling among nonadherent patients). Secondary outcomes included patient-rated quality of care and communication during the visit. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of visits with appropriate clinical management was higher in the intervention group than the control group (45 out of 65; 69 %) versus (12 out of 35; 34 %; p = 0.001). A higher proportion of adherent patients in the intervention group had their regimen intensified (p = 0.01), and a higher proportion of nonadherent patients in the intervention group received adherence counseling (p = 0.005). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to give their clinician high ratings on quality of care (p = 0.05), and on measures of patient-centered (p = 0.001) and collaborative communication (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Providing clinicians with electronically-measured antihypertensive adherence reports reduces inertia in the management of uncontrolled hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01257347 ; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT01257347.
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David J Hyman; Valory N Pavlik; Anthony J Greisinger; Wenyaw Chan; Jose Bayona; Carol Mansyur; Victor Simms; James Pool Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul C Hicks; John M Westfall; Rebecca F Van Vorst; Caroline Bublitz Emsermann; L Miriam Dickinson; Wilson Pace; Bennett Parnes Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; John E Hall; Lawrence J Appel; Bonita E Falkner; John Graves; Martha N Hill; Daniel W Jones; Theodore Kurtz; Sheldon G Sheps; Edward J Roccella Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Katharina Wolf-Maier; Richard S Cooper; José R Banegas; Simona Giampaoli; Hans-Werner Hense; Michel Joffres; Mika Kastarinen; Neil Poulter; Paola Primatesta; Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo; Birgitta Stegmayr; Michael Thamm; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Diego Vanuzzo; Fenicia Vescio Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael J Stirratt; Jeffrey R Curtis; Maria I Danila; Richard Hansen; Michael J Miller; C Ann Gakumo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Kevin G Volpp; Andrea B Troxel; Susan C Day; Raymond Lim; Noora Marcus; Laurie Norton; Sophia Anderson; David A Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Steven Shea; John L P Thompson; Joseph E Schwartz; Yineng Chen; Morgan de Ferrante; Alyssa M Vanderbeek; Richard Buchsbaum; Celibell Vargas; Khan M Siddiqui; Andrew E Moran; Melissa Stockwell Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 3.080