Cost-Effectiveness and Challenges of Implementing Intensive Blood Pressure Goals and Team-Based Care

Lay advisor interventions for hypertension outcomes: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and a RE-AIM evaluation

Introduction

Lay advisor interventions improve hypertension outcomes; however, the added benefits and relevant factors for their widespread implementation into health systems are unknown. We performed a systematic review to: (1) summarize the benefits of adding lay advisors to interventions on hypertension outcomes, and (2) summarize factors associated with successful implementation in health systems using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

Methods

We systematically searched several databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO from January 1981 to May 2023. All study designs of interventions delivered solely by lay advisors for adults with hypertension were eligible. If both arms received the lay advisor intervention, the study arm with lower intensity was assigned as the low-intensity intervention.

Results

We included 41 articles, of which 22 were RCTs, from 7,267 screened citations. Studies predominantly included socially disadvantaged populations. Meta-analysis (9 RCTs; n = 4,220) of eligible lay advisor interventions reporting outcomes showed improved systolic blood pressure (BP) [-3.72 mm Hg (CI -6.1 to -1.3; I2 88%)], and diastolic BP [-1.7 mm Hg (CI -1 to -0.9; I2 7%)] compared to control group. Pooled effect from six RCTs (n = 3,277) comparing high-intensity with low-intensity lay advisor interventions showed improved systolic BP of -3.6 mm Hg (CI -6.7 to -0.5; I2 82.7%) and improved diastolic BP of -2.1 mm Hg (CI -3.7 to -0.4; I2 70.9%) with high-intensity interventions. No significant difference in pooled odds of hypertension control was noted between lay advisor intervention and control groups, or between high-intensity and low-intensity intervention groups. Most studies used multicomponent interventions with no stepped care elements or reporting of efficacious components. Indicators of external validity (adoption, implementation, maintenance) were infrequently reported.

Discussion

Lay advisor interventions improve hypertension outcomes, with high intensity interventions having a greater impact. Further studies need to identify successful intervention and implementation factors of multicomponent interventions for stepped upscaling within healthcare system settings as well as factors used to help sustain interventions.

Medical Measures in Hypertensives Considered Resistant

BACKGROUND

Patients with resistant hypertension are the group of hypertensive patients with the highest cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

All rules and guidelines for treatment of hypertension should be followed strictly to obtain blood pressure (BP) control in resistant hypertension. The mainstay of treatment of hypertension, also for resistant hypertension, is pharmacological treatment, which should be tailored to each patient's specific phenotype. Therefore, it is pivotal to assess nonadherence to pharmacological treatment as this remains the most challenging problem to investigate and manage in the setting of resistant hypertension.

RESULTS

Once adherence has been confirmed, patients must be thoroughly worked-up for secondary causes of hypertension. Until such possible specific causes have been clarified, the diagnosis is apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH). Surprisingly few patients remain with true TRH when the various secondary causes and adherence problems have been detected and resolved. Refractory hypertension is a term used to characterize the treatment resistance in hypertensive patients using ≥5 antihypertensive drugs. All pressor mechanisms may then need blockage before their BPs are reasonably controlled.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with resistant hypertension need careful and sustained follow-up and review of their medications and dosages at each term since medication adherence is a very dynamic process.

Adding Pharmacist-Led Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring to Usual Care for Blood Pressure Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Health systems have been quickly adopting telemedicine throughout the United States, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are limited data on whether adding pharmacist-led home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring to office-based usual care improves BP. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase for randomized controlled trials from January 2000 until April 2022, comparing studies on pharmacist-led home BP telemonitoring with usual care. Six randomized controlled trials, including 1,550 participants, satisfied the inclusion criteria. There were 774 participants in the pharmacist-led telemonitoring group and 776 in the usual care group. The addition of pharmacist-led telemonitoring to usual care was associated with a significant decrease in systolic BP (mean difference -8.09, 95% confidence interval -11.15 to -5.04, p <0.001, I2 = 72%) and diastolic BP (mean difference -4.19, 95% confidence interval -5.58 to -2.81, p <0.001, I2 = 42%) compared with usual care. In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that adding pharmacist-led home BP telemonitoring to usual care achieves better BP control than usual care alone.

Long-term Outcomes of a 1-year Hypertension Quality Improvement Initiative in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

Understanding whether practices retain outcomes attained during a quality improvement (QI) initiative can inform resource allocation.

OBJECTIVE

We report blood pressure (BP) control and medication intensification in the 3 years after a 2016 QI initiative ended.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SUBJECTS

Adults with a diagnosis of hypertension who had a primary care visit in a large-integrated health system between 2015 and 2019.

MEASURES

We report BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) at the last reading of each year. We used a multilevel regression to identify the adjusted propensity to receive medication intensification among patients with an elevated BP in the first half of the year. To examine variation, we identified the average predicted probability of control for each practice. Finally, we grouped practices by the proportion of their patients whose BP was controlled in 2016: lowest performing (<75%), middle (≥75%-<85%), and highest performing (≥85%).

RESULTS

The dataset contained 184,981 patients. From 2015 to 2019, the percentage of patients in control increased from 74% to 82%. In 2015, 38% of patients with elevated BP received medication intensification. This increased to 44% in 2016 and 50% in 2019. Practices varied in average BP control (from 62% to 91% in 2016 and 68% to 90% in 2019). All but one practice had a substantial increase from 2015 to 2016. Most maintained the gains through 2019. Higher-performing practices were more likely to intensify medications than lower-performing practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Most practices maintained gains 3 years after the QI program ended. Low-performing practices should be the focus of QI programs.

Impact of COVID-19-related care disruptions on blood pressure management and control in community health centers

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled hypertension is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease. To ensure continuity of care, community health centers (CHCs) nationwide implemented virtual care (telehealth) during the pandemic. CHCs use the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 165v8 Controlling High Blood Pressure measure to report blood pressure (BP) control performance. CMS 165v8 specifications state that if no BP is documented during the measurement period, the patient's BP is assumed uncontrolled.

METHODS

To examine trends in BP documentation and control rates in CHCs as telehealth use increased during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic period, we assessed documentation of BP measurement and BP control rates from December 2019 - October 2021 among persons ages 18-85 with a diagnosis of hypertension who had an in-person or telehealth encounter in 11 CHCs. Rates were compared between CHCs that did and did not implement self-measured BP monitoring (SMBP).

RESULTS

The percent of patients with hypertension with no documented BP measurement was 0.5% in December 2019 and increased to 15.2% (overall), 25.6% (non-SMBP CHCs), and 11.2% (SMBP CHCs) by October 2021. BP control using CMS 165v8 was 63.5% in December 2019 and decreased to 54.9% (overall), 49.1% (non-SMBP), and 57.2% (SMBP) by October 2021. When assessing BP control only in patients with documented BP measurements, CHCs largely maintained BP control rates (63.8% in December 2019; 64.8% (overall), 66.0% (non-SMBP), and 64.4% (SMBP) by October 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

The transition away from in-person to telehealth visits during the pandemic likely increased the number of patients with hypertension lacking a documented BP measurement, subsequently negatively impacting BP control using CMS 165v8. There is an urgent need to enhance the flexibility of virtual care, improve EHR data capture capabilities for patient-generated data, and implement expanded policy and systems-level changes for SMBP, an evidence-based strategy that can build patient trust, increase healthcare engagement, and improve hypertension outcomes.

Addressing Hypertension Outcomes Using Telehealth and Population Health Managers: Adaptations and Implementation Considerations

Purpose of Review

There is a growing evidence base describing population health approaches to improve blood pressure control. We reviewed emerging trends in hypertension population health management and present implementation considerations from an intervention called Team-supported, Electronic health record-leveraged, Active Management (TEAM). By doing so, we highlight the role of population health managers, practitioners who use population level data and to proactively engage at-risk patients, in improving blood pressure control.

Recent Findings

Within a population health paradigm, we discuss telehealth-delivered approaches to equitably improve hypertension care delivery. Additionally, we explore implementation considerations and complementary features of team-based, telehealth-delivered, population health management. By leveraging the unique role and expertise of a population health manager as core member of team-based telehealth, health systems can implement a cost-effective and scalable intervention that addresses multi-level barriers to hypertension care delivery.

Summary

We describe the literature of telehealth-based population health management for patients with hypertension. Using the TEAM intervention as a case study, we then present implementation considerations and intervention adaptations to integrate a population health manager within the health care team and effectively manage hypertension for a defined patient population. We emphasize practical considerations to inform implementation, scaling, and sustainability. We highlight future research directions to advance the field and support translational efforts in diverse clinical and community contexts.

Cost-Effectiveness of Recommendations From the Surgeon General's Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension

In response to high prevalence of hypertension and suboptimal rates of blood pressure (BP) control in the United States, the Surgeon General released a Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension (Call-to-Action) in the fall of 2020 to address the negative consequences of uncontrolled BP. In addition to morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, hypertension has an annual cost to the US healthcare system of $71 billion. The Call-to-Action makes recommendations for improving BP control, and the purpose of this review was to summarize the literature on the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. We identified a number of studies that demonstrate the cost saving or cost-effectiveness of recommendations in the Call-to-Action including strategies to promote access to and availability of physical activity opportunities and healthy food options within communities, advance the use of standardized treatment approaches and guideline-recommended care, to promote the use of healthcare teams to manage hypertension, and to empower and equip patients to use self-measured BP monitoring and medication adherence strategies. While the current review identified numerous cost-effective methods to achieve the Surgeon General's recommendations for improving BP control, future work should determine the cost-effectiveness of the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Hypertension guidelines, interventions to lower therapeutic inertia, and optimal team-based care strategies, among other areas of research. Economic evaluation studies should also be prioritized to generate more comprehensive data on how to provide efficient and high value care to improve BP control.

Analysis of Therapeutic Inertia and Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Therapeutic inertia may contribute to racial and ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) control.

Objective

To determine the association between race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was a secondary analysis of data from SPRINT, a randomized clinical trial comparing intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP treatment goals. Participants were enrolled between November 8, 2010, and March 15, 2013, with a median follow-up 3.26 years. Participants included adults aged 50 years or older at high risk for cardiovascular disease but without diabetes, previous stroke, or heart failure. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured BP above the target goal. Analyses for the present study were performed in from October 2020 through March 2021.

Exposures

Self-reported race and ethnicity, mutually exclusively categorized into groups of Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White participants.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Therapeutic inertia, defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the BP was above target goal. The association between self-reported race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia was estimated using generalized estimating equations and stratified by treatment group. Antihypertensive medication use was assessed with pill bottle inventories at each visit. Blood pressure was measured using an automated device.

Results

A total of 8556 participants, including 4141 in the standard group (22 844 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1467 women [35.4%]) and 4415 in the intensive group (35 453 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1584 women [35.9%]) with at least 1 eligible study visit were included in the present analysis. Among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic participants, the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia in the standard vs intensive groups was 59.8% (95% CI, 58.9%-60.7%) vs 56.0% (95% CI, 55.2%-56.7%), 56.8% (95% CI, 54.4%-59.2%) vs 54.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-56.6%), and 59.7% (95% CI, 56.5%-63.0%) vs 51.0% (95% CI, 47.4%-54.5%), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios in the standard and intensive groups for therapeutic inertia associated with non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White participants were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for therapeutic inertia comparing Hispanic vs non-Hispanic White participants were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90-1.13) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00) in the standard and intensive groups, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among SPRINT participants above BP target goal, this cross-sectional study found that therapeutic inertia prevalence was similar or lower for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants compared with non-Hispanic White participants. These findings suggest that a standardized approach to BP management, as used in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in hypertension.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensive blood pressure control in Korea

This study was a cost-effectiveness analysis of intensive blood pressure (BP) control among hypertensive patients in Korea. We constructed a Markov model comparing intensive versus standard BP control treatment and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The study population consisted of hypertensive patients over 50 years old with systolic blood pressures (SBPs) exceeding 140 mmHg and at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Treatment alternatives included lowering the SBP below 120 mmHg (intensive) and 140 mmHg (standard) for target BP. We assumed five scenarios with different medication adherence. The effectiveness variable was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs included medical costs related to hypertension (HT), complications, and nonmedical costs. In addition, we performed a sensitivity analysis to confirm the robustness of the results of this study. Scenario 5, with 100% medication adherence, showed the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,373 USD, followed by scenario 1 (first 15 years: 62.5%, 16-30 years: 65.2%, after 30 years: 59.5%), scenario 2 (first five years: 62.5% decrease by 5% every five years), and scenario 3 (first 10 years: 62.5% decrease by 10% every 10 years). The ICERs in all scenarios were lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $9,492-$32,907 USD in Korea. Tornado analysis showed that the ICERs were changed greatly according to stroke incidence. Intensive treatment of HT prevents cardiovascular disease (CVD); therefore, intensive treatment is more cost-effective than standard treatment despite the consumption of more health resources. ICERs are considerably changed according to medication adherence, confirming the importance of patient adherence to treatment.

Team-Based Care for Improving Hypertension Management: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: We evaluated the effect on long term blood pressure (BP) of an interprofessional team-based care (TBC) intervention, involving nurses, pharmacists, and physicians, compared to usual care.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study in ambulatory clinics and community pharmacies in Switzerland (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02511093). Uncontrolled treated hypertensive patients were randomized to TBC or usual care (UC). In the TBC group, nurses and pharmacists met patients every 6 weeks to measure BP, assess lifestyle, support medication adherence, and provide health education for 6 months. After each visit, they wrote a report to the physician who could adjust antihypertensive therapy. The outcome was the intention-to-treat difference in mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and control (<135/85 mmHg) at 6 and 12 months.

Results: Eighty-nine patients (60 men/29 women; mean (SD) age: 61(12) year) were randomized to TBC (n = 43) or UC (n = 46). At baseline, mean (SD) BP was 144(10)/90(8) mmHg and 147(12)/87(11) mmHg in the TBC and UC groups. At 6 months, the between-groups difference in daytime systolic ABPM was−3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI):−10 to +4; p = 0.45]; at 12 months, this difference was−7 mmHg [95% CI:−13 to−2; p = 0.01]. At 6 months, the between-groups difference in daytime diastolic ABPM was +2 mmHg [95% CI:−1 to +6; p = 0.20]; at 12 months, this difference was−2 mmHg [95% CI:−5 to +2; 0.42]. Upon adjustment for baseline covariates including baseline BP, the between-groups differences at 6 and 12 months were maintained. At 6 months, there was no difference in BP control. At 12 months, the TBC group tended to have a better control in systolic BP (p = 0.07) but not in diastolic BP (p = 0.33).

Conclusion: While there was not significant effect on BP at 6 months of follow-up, the TBC intervention can help decrease long-term systolic BP among uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

Inequities in Hypertension Control in the United States Exposed and Exacerbated by COVID-19 and the Role of Home Blood Pressure and Virtual Health Care During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID‐19 pandemic is a public health crisis, having killed more than 514 000 US adults as of March 2, 2021. COVID‐19 mitigation strategies have unintended consequences on managing chronic conditions such as hypertension, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and health disparities in the United States. During the first wave of the pandemic in the United States, the combination of observed racial/ethnic inequities in COVID‐19 deaths and social unrest reinvigorated a national conversation about systemic racism in health care and society. The 4th Annual University of Utah Translational Hypertension Symposium gathered frontline clinicians, researchers, and leaders from diverse backgrounds to discuss the intersection of these 2 critical social and public health phenomena and to highlight preexisting disparities in hypertension treatment and control exacerbated by COVID‐19. The discussion underscored environmental and socioeconomic factors that are deeply embedded in US health care and research that impact inequities in hypertension. Structural racism plays a central role at both the health system and individual levels. At the same time, virtual healthcare platforms are being accelerated into widespread use by COVID‐19, which may widen the divide in healthcare access across levels of wealth, geography, and education. Blood pressure control rates are declining, especially among communities of color and those without health insurance or access to health care. Hypertension awareness, therapeutic lifestyle changes, and evidence‐based pharmacotherapy are essential. There is a need to improve the implementation of community‐based interventions and blood pressure self‐monitoring, which can help build patient trust and increase healthcare engagement.