Moving beyond guidelines: are report cards the answer to high rates of uncontrolled hypertension?

Adherence to blood pressure and glucose recommendations in chronic kidney disease hospital inpatients: Clinical inertia and patient adherence

AIMS

To determine the extent to which targets for blood pressure (BP) (<140.90 mmHg) and random blood glucose level (BGL) (<7.7 mmol/L) control in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are achieved; and the extent clinical inertia affects BP and glucose control in CKD and diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

Data was collected from the 1st January 2015 until 31st December 2015 on key patient pathology, admission reason, final discharge diagnosis, and information concerning clinical guideline adherence.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven (n = 87) CKD patients were included. The average hospital BP for all CKD patients was 134.3/73.4 mmHg, adhering to recommendations of <140/90 mmHg. The average CKD patient pre-admission BP was 134.8/72.2 mmHg compared to the discharge BP of 129.8/72.2 mmHg. At admission, 63.3% and 93.1% of patients adhered to systolic and diastolic BP recommendations, which significantly (p = < .05) increased at discharge to a systolic and diastolic BP adherence of 83.9% and 98.8%, respectively. The average random hospital BGL was 7.7 mmol/L, indicating good control, whereas the pre-hospital HbA1c average was 7.58%, indicating poor control (>7.0% >53 mmol/mol). There were 21 cases of clinical inertia, affecting 18 out of 87 patients (20.7%), with significant adverse hospital discharge differences (p = <.05) between clinical inertia and non- clinical inertia patient systolic BP (144.2 vs. 132.8 mmHg), deranged BGL (66.7% vs. 35.3%), and reduction in kidney function (83.3% vs. 30.9%).

CONCLUSION

Adherence appears to be related to inpatient clinical inertia and outpatient patient health literacy and empowerment.

Blood glucose and pressure controls in diabetic kidney disease: Narrative review of adherence, barriers and evidence of achievement

AIMS

To review the epidemiology and the clinical evidence regarding achieving blood pressure (BP) and blood glucose control in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus (DM), with emphasis on adherence and barriers within the context of Australian clinical guidelines. This article then considers Australian services aimed at BP, DM, and CKD, guideline adherence and control.

METHODS

Evidence from PubMed-listed articles published between 1994 and 2016 is considered, including original research, focusing on randomised controlled trials and prospective studies, review articles, meta- analyses, expert and professional bodies' guidelines as well as our experience.

RESULTS

There have been no Australian studies that consider adherence to BP control in DM and CKD patients. This is a major limitation in preventing DM and renal disease progression. It is possible that Australian clinicians are not adhering to DM, hypertension (HT), and glucose recommendations, thus resulting in reduced patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that future studies ascertain the extent to which the required BP and glucose control in patients is achieved, and the potential barriers to adherence. The significance of this is immense since the impact of failure to control blood glucose levels and BP leads to renal damage.

Blood pressure 2 years after a chronic disease management intervention study

OBJECTIVES

To follow blood pressure change over time in participants who had participated in a 1- year chronic disease management program focused on blood pressure reduction. The expectation was that blood pressure would return back to the baseline once the study was completed.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, single-arm observational study.

METHODS

Study participants were Status Indians living on-reserve with type 2 diabetes and persistent hypertension who had participated in the DREAM3 study. Blood pressure was measured with the BpTRU automated device every 6 months for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the change in systolic blood pressure over the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Sixty of the original 96 participants agreed to participate in the follow-up. Mean blood pressure at the beginning of the follow-up was 130/76 (SD 18/12) mmHg. Mean blood pressure at the end of the follow-up period was 132/76 (17/9 SD) mmHg. Target blood pressure (<130/80 mmHg) was present in 53%. The 99% confidence limit around change of blood pressure over the 24 months of follow-up was +/-4.7 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to expectations, the participants maintained their blood pressure control and did not revert to baseline levels. Community awareness and engagement resulting from the chronic disease management program led to a sustainable improvement in the health parameters of the participants and the community that lasted beyond the duration of the 1-year DREAM3 project.