Dataset Information

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension.

Methods and findings

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies.

Conclusions

Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

SUBMITTER: Tucker KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5604965 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low levels of vitamin D are associated with elevated blood pressure (BP) and future cardiovascular events. Whether vitamin D supplementation reduces BP and which patient characteristics predict a response remain unclear.To systematically review whether supplementation with vitamin D or its analogues reduce BP.We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and http://www.ClinicalTrials.com augmented by a hand search of references from the included articles and previous reviews. Google was searched for gray literature (ie, material not published in recognized scientific journals). No language restrictions were applied. The search period spanned January 1, 1966, through March 31, 2014.We included randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that used vitamin D supplementation for a minimum of 4 weeks for any indication and reported BP data. Studies were included if they used active or inactive forms of vitamin D or vitamin D analogues. Cointerventions were permitted if identical in all treatment arms.We extracted data on baseline demographics, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), and change in BP from baseline to the final follow-up. Individual patient data on age, sex, medication use, diabetes mellitus, baseline and follow-up BP, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were requested from the authors of the included studies. For trial-level data, between-group differences in BP change were combined in a random-effects model. For individual patient data, between-group differences in BP at the final follow up, adjusted for baseline BP, were calculated before combining in a random-effects model.Difference in SBP and DBP measured in an office setting.We included 46 trials (4541 participants) in the trial-level meta-analysis. Individual patient data were obtained for 27 trials (3092 participants). At the trial level, no effect of vitamin D supplementation was seen on SBP (effect size, 0.0 [95% CI, -0.8 to 0.8] mm Hg; P=.97; I2=21%) or DBP (effect size, -0.1 [95% CI, -0.6 to 0.5] mm Hg; P=.84; I2=20%). Similar results were found analyzing individual patient data for SBP (effect size, -0.5 [95% CI, -1.3 to 0.4] mm Hg; P=.27; I2=0%) and DBP (effect size, 0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.7] mm Hg; P=.38; I2=0%). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any baseline factor predictive of a better response to therapy.Vitamin D supplementation is ineffective as an agent for lowering BP and thus should not be used as an antihypertensive agent.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-monitoring of behavior can support lifestyle modifications; however, we do not know whether such interventions are effective in supporting positive changes in hypertension-related health behaviors and thus in reducing blood pressure in patients treated for hypertension.ObjectiveThis systematic literature review evaluates the extent to which smartphone app-based self-monitoring of health behavior supports reductions in blood pressure and changes in hypertension-related behaviors. It also explores the behavioral components that might explain intervention effectiveness.MethodsA systematic search of 7 databases was conducted in August 2021. Article screening, study and intervention coding, and data extraction were completed independently by reviewers. The search strategy was developed using keywords from previous reviews and relevant literature. Trials involving adults, published after the year 2000, and in the English language were considered for inclusion. The random-effects meta-analysis method was used to account for the distribution of the effect across the studies.ResultsWe identified 4638 articles, of which 227 were included for full-text screening. A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were included in the review. In total, 7415 patients with hypertension were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicate that app-based behavioral self-monitoring interventions had a small but significant effect in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP), on average, by 1.64 mmHg (95% CI 2.73-0.55, n=7301; odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% CI 0.74-3.42, n=114) and in improving changes in medication adherence behavior (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78, 95% CI 0.22-1.34) compared to usual care or minimal intervention. The review found the intervention had a small effect on supporting improvements in healthy diet by changing habits related to high sodium food (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.08) and a trend, although insignificant, toward supporting smoking cessation, low alcohol consumption, and better physical activity behaviors. A subgroup analysis found that behavioral self-monitoring interventions combined with tailored advice resulted in higher and significant changes in both SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in comparison to those not providing tailored advice (SBP: -2.92 mmHg, 95% CI -3.94 to -1.90, n=3102 vs -0.72 mmHg, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.23, n=4199, χ2=9.65, P=.002; DBP: -2.05 mmHg, 95% CI -3.10 to -1.01, n=968 vs 1.54 mmHg, 95% CI -0.53 to 3.61, n=400, χ2=9.19, P=.002).ConclusionsSelf-monitoring of hypertension-related behaviors via smartphone apps combined with tailored advice has a modest but potentially clinically significant effect on blood pressure reduction. Future studies could use rigorous methods to explore its effects on supporting changes in both blood pressure and hypertension-related health behaviors to inform recommendations for policy making and service provision.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019136158; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=136158.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension (HTN) is common following renal transplantation and it is associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular (CV) and graft health. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is the preferred method to characterize blood pressure (BP) status, since HTN misclassification by office BP (OBP) is quite common in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the clinical utility of 24-h ABPM and its potential implications for the management of HTN in this population.MethodsOvid-MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched for interventional or observational studies enrolling adult kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) undergoing 24-h ABP readings compared with OBP or home BP. The main outcome was the proportion of KTRs diagnosed with HTN by ABPM, home or OBP recordings. Additionally, day-night BP variability and dipper/non-dipper status were assessed.ResultsForty-two eligible studies (4115 participants) were reviewed. A cumulative analysis including 27 studies (3481 participants) revealed a prevalence of uncontrolled HTN detected by ABPM of 56% [95% confidence interval (CI) 46-65%]. The pooled prevalence of uncontrolled HTN according to OBP was 47% (95% CI 36-58%) in 25 studies (3261 participants). Very few studies reported on home BP recordings. The average concordance rate between OBP and ABPM measurements in classifying patients as controlled or uncontrolled hypertensive was 66% (95% CI 59-73%). ABPM revealed HTN phenotypes among KTRs. Two pooled analyses of 11 and 10 studies, respectively, revealed an average prevalence of 26% (95% CI 19-33%) for masked HTN (MHT) and 10% (95% CI 6-17%) for white-coat HTN (WCH). The proportion of non-dippers was variable across the 28 studies that analysed dipping status, with an average prevalence of 54% (95% CI 45-63%).ConclusionsIn our systematic review, comparison of OBP versus ABP measurements disclosed a high proportion of MHT, uncontrolled HTN and, to a lesser extent, WCH in KTRs. These results suggest that HTN is not adequately diagnosed and controlled by OBP recordings in this population. Furthermore, the high prevalence of non-dippers confirmed that circadian rhythm is commonly disturbed in KTRs.

Project description:BackgroundIn the era of digital health information technology, there has been a proliferation of devices that collect patient-generated health data (PGHD), including consumer blood pressure (BP) monitors. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether such devices can improve health outcomes.ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review of the literature on consumer BP monitors that collect PGHD for managing hypertension to summarize their clinical impact on health and surrogate outcomes. We focused particularly on studies designed to measure the specific effect of using a BP monitor independent of cointerventions. We have also summarized the process and consumer experience outcomes.MethodsAn information specialist searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for controlled studies on consumer BP monitors published up to May 12, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted 9-item appraisal tool and performed a narrative synthesis of the results.ResultsWe identified 41 different types of BP monitors used in 49 studies included for review. Device engineers judged that 38 (92%) of those devices were similar to the currently available consumer BP monitors. The median sample size was 222 (IQR 101-416) participants, and the median length of follow-up was 6 (IQR 3-12) months. Of the included studies, 18 (36%) were designed to isolate the clinical effects of BP monitors; 6 of the 18 (33%) studies evaluated health outcomes (eg, mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life), and data on those outcomes were unclear. The lack of clarity was due to low event rates, short follow-up duration, and risk of bias. All 18 studies that isolated the effect of BP monitors measured both systolic and diastolic BP and generally demonstrated a decrease of 2 to 4 mm Hg in systolic BP and 1 to 3 mm Hg in diastolic BP compared with non-BP monitor groups. Adherence to using consumer BP monitors ranged from 38% to 89%, and ease of use and satisfaction ratings were generally high. Adverse events were infrequent, but there were a few technical problems with devices (eg, incorrect device alerts).ConclusionsOverall, BP monitors offer small benefits in terms of BP reduction; however, the health impact of these devices continues to remain unclear. Future studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of BP monitors that transmit data to health care providers. Additional data from implementation studies may help determine which components are critical for sustained BP improvement, which in turn may improve prescription decisions by clinicians and coverage decisions by policy makers.