Antihypertensive treatment based on home or office blood pressure--the THOP trial

Effect of Home Medication Titration on Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Medication titration has been used in home blood pressure (BP) control, with the expectation of enabling patients with hypertension to better manage their BP.

Objective:

The study goal was to estimate the effects of medication titration intervention in lowering the systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure of patients with hypertension.

Methods:

The meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials on adults diagnosed with hypertension and BP≧130/80 mm Hg, having a medication-titration intervention, and using a home BP measurement. We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Ovid-Medline, and the Cochrane Library, for studies published from 1997 to 2017. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Modified Jadad scale. Statistical heterogeneity among the trials was evaluated using Q statistics and I². Publication bias was assessed with the funnel plot and Rosenthal’s fail-safe N.

Results:

The meta-analysis included 4 studies randomizing 1335 participants. Medication-titration intervention significantly assisted hypertensive patients to improve BP control; systolic blood pressure was reduced by 6.86 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.80-8.93, P<0.0001] and diastolic blood pressure by 3.03 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.07-3.99, P<0.0001), did not significantly affect EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.04, P=0.13).

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest home medication titration of antihypertensive medication for hypertensive patients significantly improved home BP control. However, the strategy did not enhance quality of life in patients with hypertension.

Economics of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Community Guide Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The health and economic burden of hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is substantial. This systematic review evaluated the economic evidence of self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring interventions to control hypertension.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The literature search from database inception to March 2015 identified 22 studies for inclusion with three types of interventions: SMBP used alone, SMBP with additional support, and SMBP within team-based care (TBC). Two formulae were used to convert reductions in systolic BP (SBP) to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to produce cost per QALY saved. All analyses were conducted in 2015, with estimates adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Median costs of intervention were $60 and $174 per person for SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support, respectively, and $732 per person per year for SMBP within TBC. SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support reduced healthcare cost per person per year from outpatient visits and medication (medians $148 and $3, respectively; median follow-up, 12-13 months). SMBP within TBC exhibited an increase in healthcare cost (median, $369 per person per year; median follow-up, 18 months). SMBP alone varied from cost saving to a maximum cost of $144,000 per QALY saved, with two studies reporting an increase in SBP. The two translated median costs per QALY saved were $2,800 and $4,000 for SMBP with additional support and $7,500 and $10,800 for SMBP within TBC.

CONCLUSIONS

SMBP monitoring interventions with additional support or within TBC are cost effective. Cost effectiveness of SMBP used alone could not be determined.

Cost-effectiveness of noninvasive central blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis of hypertension

BACKGROUND

Central blood pressure (CBP) betters conventional clinical BP (cuff BP) in predicting cardiovascular outcomes. Noninvasive CBP monitoring has emerged as a new technology for management of hypertension. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive CBP compared to cuff BP monitoring for confirming a diagnosis of hypertension.

METHODS

Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for CBP and cuff BP monitoring using a cohort Markov model. We applied model calibration and probabilistic sensitivity analysis on populations representative of the general population, in 10-year age brackets, from age 35 years to over 75 years of age.

RESULTS

The CBP strategy was more cost-effective than cuff BP for men and women across all age subgroups, with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from £226 to £2,750 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness was mainly driven by improved patient outcomes, represented by the QALY gains (0.09-0.88), at an acceptable incremental cost (£116-£371). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the consistency and robustness of the cost-effectiveness of the CBP strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Early evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive CBP monitoring suggests significant improvements in the confirmation of suspected hypertension, compared to cuff BP. This paper suggests that the long-term benefits of improved diagnostic performance justify the supplementary purchase costs of new, noninvasive CBP monitors. The results highlight the potential value of CBP, and hence the value of further research to confirm the diagnostic and prognostic role of CBP for the management of hypertension.

Practical use of home blood pressure monitoring in chronic kidney disease

Despite the availability of blood pressure (BP)-lowering medications and dietary education, hypertension is still poorly controlled in the chronic kidney disease (CKD) population. As glomerular filtration rate declines, the number of medications required to achieve BP targets increases, which may lead to reduced patient adherence and therapeutic inertia by the clinician. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) has emerged as a means of improving diagnostic accuracy, risk stratification, patient adherence, and therapeutic intervention. The definition of hypertension by HBPM is an average BP >135/85 mm Hg. Twelve readings over the course of 3-5 days are sufficient for clinical decision making. Diagnostic accuracy is especially important in the CKD population as approximately half of these patients have either white coat hypertension or masked hypertension. Preliminary data suggest that HBPM outperforms office BP monitoring in predicting progression to end-stage renal disease or death. When combined with additional support such as telemonitoring, medication titration, or behavioral therapy, HBPM results in a sustained improvement in BP control. HBPM must be adapted to provide information on the phenomena of nondipping (absence of nocturnal fall in BP) and reverse dipping (paradoxical increase in BP at night). These diurnal patterns are more prevalent in the CKD population and are important cardiovascular risk factors. Ambulatory BP monitoring provides nocturnal BP readings and unlike HBPM may be reimbursed by Medicare when certain criteria are met. Further studies are needed to determine whether HBPM is cost-effective in the current US healthcare system.

Is it possible to manage hypertension and evaluate therapy without ambulatory blood pressure monitoring?

In the management of patients with hypertension, blood pressure (BP) has been traditionally measured in the physician's office. The contribution of ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to the management of hypertensive patients has been increasingly recognized through clinical and epidemiological research. Ambulatory BP monitoring can enhance the ability to detect white-coat or masked hypertension, determine the absence of nocturnal dipping status, and evaluate BP control in patients on antihypertensive therapy. Recently, the United Kingdom National Clinical Guideline Centre published guidelines for the clinical management of primary hypertension in adults, recommending the routine use of ABPM to make the initial diagnosis of hypertension. While the advantages of ABPM are apparent from a clinical perspective, its use should be considered in relation to the cost of the equipment, data evaluation, and staff training as well as the possible inconvenience to the patient. In this review, we summarize the clinical importance of ABPM and discuss the current guidelines for establishing the diagnosis of hypertension.

Contextual and time dependent pain in fibromyalgia: an explorative study

Background

Little is known about contextual effects on chronic pain, and how vulnerability factors influence pain in different contexts. We wanted to examine if fibromyalgia (FM) pain varied between two social contexts, i.e. at home versus in a doctor office, when it was measured the same day, and if pain was stable for 14 years when measured in similar contexts (doctor office). Our secondary aim was to explore if pain vulnerability factors varied in the two different contexts.

Findings

Fifty-five female FM patients were included in the study and scored pain in both contexts at baseline. Their age ranged between 21–68 years (mean 45.7), mean education level was 11 years and mean FM-duration was 15.6 years. Their mean pain was perceived significantly lower at home than in a doctor context the same day. However, pain was much more stable when measured in two similar contexts 14 year apart where 30 subjects (54.5%) completed. Predictor analyses revealed that pain vulnerability factors apparently varied by home and doctor contexts.

Conclusion

Pain and pain predictors seem to vary by contexts and time, with less pain at home than to a doctor the same day, but with unchanged pain in the same context after 14 years. Thus, contextual pain cues should be accounted for when pain is measured and treated, e.g. by focusing more on home-measured pain and by optimizing the doctor office context. This explorative study should be followed up by a larger full-scale study.

A primary care pragmatic cluster randomized trial of the use of home blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure levels in hypertensive patients with above target blood pressure

BACKGROUND

The measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home by patients with hypertension is increasingly used to assess and monitor BP. Evidence for its effectiveness in improving BP control is mixed.

METHODS

To determine if home BP monitoring improves BP a pragmatic cluster randomized contolled trial was carried out in family practices in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Family practice patients with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited to the trail. Patients were divided into two groups: one with at least weekly measurements of BP at home, recording those measurements and showing those to the family physician during office visits for hypertension and the control group were given usual care. The primary outcome was mean awake BP on ambulatory monitoring at 6- and 12-month follow-up and the secondary outcomes were mean BP on full 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), mean sleep BP on ABPM and BP on the BpTRU device, all at 6- and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Home BP monitoring did not improve BP compared to usual care at 12-month follow-up: mean awake systolic BP on ABPM [141.1 versus 142.8 mmHg, mean difference 1.7 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.6 to 4.0, P = 0.314] and mean awake diastolic BP on ABPM (78.7 versus 79.4 mmHg, mean difference 0.7 mmHg; 95% CI -7.7 to 9.1, P = 0.398). Similar negative results were obtained for men and women separately. However, outcomes using the full 24-hour ABPM and the BpTRU device showed a significantly lower diastolic BP at 12 months. When analysis was done by sex, this effect was shown to be only in men.

CONCLUSION

Home BP monitoring may improve BP control in men with hypertension.

Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Patients with high blood pressure (hypertension) in the community frequently fail to meet treatment goals - a condition labelled as "uncontrolled" hypertension. The optimal way to organize and deliver care to hypertensive patients has not been clearly identified.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. To evaluate the effectiveness of reminders on improving the follow-up of patients with hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

All-language search of all articles (any year) in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) and Medline; and Embase from January 1980.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with hypertension that evaluated the following interventions: (1) self-monitoring (2) educational interventions directed to the patient (3) educational interventions directed to the health professional (4) health professional (nurse or pharmacist) led care (5) organisational interventions that aimed to improve the delivery of care (6) appointment reminder systemsOutcomes assessed were: (1) mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure (2) control of blood pressure (3) proportion of patients followed up at clinic

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently and in duplicate and assessed each study according to the criteria outlined by the Cochrane Handbook.

MAIN RESULTS

72 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included studies varied. An organized system of regular review allied to vigorous antihypertensive drug therapy was shown to reduce systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference (WMD) -8.0 mmHg, 95% CI: -8.8 to -7.2 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD -4.3 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.7 to -3.9 mmHg) for three strata of entry blood pressure, and all-cause mortality at five years follow-up (6.4% versus 7.8%, difference 1.4%) in a single large RCT- the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up study. Other interventions had variable effects. Self-monitoring was associated with moderate net reduction in systolic blood pressure (WMD -2.5 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.7 to -1.3 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD -1.8 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.4 to -1.2 mmHg). RCTs of educational interventions directed at patients or health professionals were heterogeneous but appeared unlikely to be associated with large net reductions in blood pressure by themselves. Nurse or pharmacist led care may be a promising way forward, with the majority of RCTs being associated with improved blood pressure control and mean SBP and DBP but these interventions require further evaluation. Appointment reminder systems also require further evaluation due to heterogeneity and small trial numbers, but the majority of trials increased the proportion of individuals who attended for follow-up (odds ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51) and in two small trials also led to improved blood pressure control, odds ratio favouring intervention 0.54 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Family practices and community-based clinics need to have an organized system of regular follow-up and review of their hypertensive patients. Antihypertensive drug therapy should be implemented by means of a vigorous stepped care approach when patients do not reach target blood pressure levels. Self-monitoring and appointment reminders may be useful adjuncts to the above strategies to improve blood pressure control but require further evaluation.

Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (Class IIa; Level of Evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >/=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society Of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (Class IIa; Level of Evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >or=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Comparison of different methods of blood pressure measurements

OBJECTIVE

To compare different methods of measuring and averaging blood pressure readings, and see how they affect classification of patients as normotensive or hypertensive.

METHODS

The comparisons were made in up to 145 suitable patients in the first and last week of a 6-week surveillance. Ambulatory blood pressure measurements were taken from the nondominant arm, as the average of up to 78 measurements over 24 h (24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements), or 60 from 0700 h to 2200 h (daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurements), or 18 from 2200 h to 0700 h (night-time ambulatory blood pressure measurements). Office blood pressure measurements were taken by the outpatient department nurse in triplicate from both arms, and the averages were taken of the second and third of each triplicate. Home blood pressure measurements were taken in duplicate each morning and evening, entered by patients into diaries, and the available readings of up to four values per day were averaged for the first and sixth week. The classifications of normotensive versus hypertensive produced by criterion values of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements of 125/80 and 130/80 mmHg were compared with the classifications produced by the other measurements with a range of criterion values.

RESULTS

The home blood pressure measurements and office blood pressure measurements of systolic values underestimated the corresponding 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements values by 3-9 average (SD 9-18) mmHg, and the diastolic values overestimated them by averages of 3-6 (SD 6-13) mmHg. Daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement systolic and diastolic values overestimated them by 2-4 (SD 2-4) mmHg and night-time ambulatory blood pressure measurement values underestimated them by 7-12 (SD 5-9) mmHg. In comparing the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement classifications of hypertensives versus normotensives with those produced from the other types of measurements, it was easiest to detect criterion values for daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement that gave the best agreement and they appeared different for the different criterion values of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement. For the other types of measurement, the agreement was generally worse and it was harder to detect a best criterion value for agreement with either of the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement classifications. A subsample of 63 patients identified as needing institution, maintenance or modification of antihypertensive treatment excluded about half of the patients classified as hypertensive by either 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement criterion.

CONCLUSION

Limited agreement existed between different ways of classifying patients. The utility of the classifications depends on the purpose to which they are put.

Clinical characteristics of resistant hypertension: the importance of compliance and the role of diagnostic evaluation in delineating pathogenesis

Resistant hypertension is defined as failure to achieve goal blood pressure despite adherence to 3 different antihypertensive medications, one of which must be a diuretic. True resistant hypertension must be distinguished by apparent resistant hypertension, of which an important cause is medication nonadherence, which can be recognized through a variety of monitoring strategies and may be improved through better patient education. A thorough history and examination should focus on evaluating for associated factors such as medication and illicit drug use, alcoholism, obesity, and obstructive sleep apnea. Further evaluation to differentiate apparent resistant hypertension from true resistant hypertension should include consideration of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to rule out white coat hypertension. Routine laboratory work will reveal chronic kidney disease, which is the most common associated factor in resistant hypertension. Secondary or identifiable causes of resistant hypertension include primary aldosteronism, renovascular disease, and pheochromocytoma. Diagnostic evaluation for identifiable causes should be tailored for each patient and guided by signs and symptoms, as well as risks and benefits.

The trained observer better predicts daytime ABPM diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients than does an automated (Omron) device

OBJECTIVES

Accurate blood pressure measurement is critical to successful clinical trials. Concerns about observer errors have led to the use of automated oscillometric devices without evidence that their performance is similar to that of trained observers. This study compares blood pressures obtained by trained observers and with an oscillometric device (Omron 705CP) to 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of 313 untreated hypertensive patients at the end of the washout phase of a Novartis hypertension trial. Patients had three seated trained observer mercury auscultatory blood pressure measurements followed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The next day, the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was removed and three seated readings were obtained with an Omron 705CP. Correlations for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were obtained between daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (0900 and 2100) and the two office methods. In addition, we investigated the degree of difference of trained observer and Omron measurements from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

RESULTS

For systolic blood pressure, the correlation with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring of the trained observer was significantly better than with that of the Omron 705CP (0.641 vs. 0.555, P=0.01). For diastolic blood pressure values, even greater disparity between the two office method correlations with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was observed (trained observer=0.593 vs. Omron=0.319, P<0.0001). Both trained observer and Omron readings were consistently higher than ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for systolic blood pressure (P<0.0001) and diastolic blood pressure (P<0.0001). Omron measurements, however, deviated from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring more than those of the trained observer (P<0.0001 for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure).

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical trials using diastolic blood pressure targets, the Omron 705CP cannot replace the auscultatory blood pressure measurements of a trained observer. For systolic blood pressure, the Omron device and the trained observer had similar correlations with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; however, both methods gave consistently higher systolic blood pressure values. Further study of oscillometric devices should be conducted before universally replacing auscultatory blood pressure determinations by trained observers in clinical trials.

Use of home blood-pressure monitoring in the detection, treatment and surveillance of hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Use of home blood-pressure monitoring is increasing but the technique and the equipment have limitations. We provide an overview of recent evidence in this rapidly evolving field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Home blood-pressure monitoring is an acceptable method for screening patients for hypertension. There is increasing evidence supporting the predictive power of home blood pressure for stroke risk even in the general population. The identification of white-coat and masked hypertension remains an important role for home blood-pressure monitoring. Unvalidated equipment and poor patient technique are major concerns. The purchase of devices needs to be linked to a simple patient-education programme, which is perhaps an opportunity for collaboration between healthcare providers and commercial companies. Devices that store the blood-pressure measurements in the memory are preferred to ensure accuracy of reporting. Data-transmission systems providing automatic storage, transmission and reporting of blood pressure, direct involvement of the patient and potentially a reduced number of hospital/general practitioner visits, offer significant advantages. To reduce patient anxiety, overuse of home blood-pressure monitoring should be avoided but there is the potential for self-modification of treatment, subject to certain safeguards.

SUMMARY

Self-monitoring of blood pressure is developing rapidly, linked to increasing awareness of the impact of reducing high blood pressure on public health and the marketing/advertising strategies used to sell automatic devices. Home blood-pressure monitoring has a role in the detection and management of blood pressure, but not at the expense of careful blood-pressure measurement in the office and adherence to national guidelines.