BackgroundSelf-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 findingsMedline, 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 IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study.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.ConclusionsSelf-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.

Background: Controlled clinical trials of health care interventions are either explanatory or pragmatic. Explanatory trials test whether an intervention is efficacious; that is, whether it can have a beneficial effect in an ideal situation. Pragmatic trials measure effectiveness; they measure the degree of beneficial effect in real clinical practice. In pragmatic trials, a balance between external validity (generalizability of the results) and internal validity (reliability or accuracy of the results) needs to be achieved. The explanatory trial seeks to maximize the internal validity by assuring rigorous control of all variables other than the intervention. The pragmatic trial seeks to maximize external validity to ensure that the results can be generalized. However the danger of pragmatic trials is that internal validity may be overly compromised in the effort to ensure generalizability. We are conducting two pragmatic randomized controlled trials on interventions in the management of hypertension in primary care. We describe the design of the trials and the steps taken to deal with the competing demands of external and internal validity.

No abstract

Objective To compare the quality and accuracy of manual office blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using the awake ambulatory blood pressure as a gold standard. Design Multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care practices in five cities in eastern Canada.

BackgroundIncreasing evidence suggests that ABPM more closely predicts target organ damage than does clinic measurement. Future guidelines may suggest ABPM as routine in the diagnosis and monitoring of hypertension. This would create difficulties as this test is expensive and often difficult to obtain. The purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which the BpTRU automatic blood pressure monitor predicts results on 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).MethodsA quantitative analysis comparing blood pressure measured by the BpTRU device with the mean daytime blood pressure on 24 hour ABPM. The study was conducted by the Centre for Studies in Primary Care, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada on adult primary care patients who are enrolled in two randomized controlled trials on hypertension. The main outcomes were the mean of the blood pressures measured at the three most recent office visits, the initial measurement on the BpTRU-100, the mean of the five measurements on the BpTRU monitor, and the daytime average on 24 hour ABPM.ResultsThe group mean of the three charted clinic measured blood pressures (150.8 (SD10.26) / 82.9 (SD 8.44)) was not statistically different from the group mean of the initial reading on BpTRU (150.0 (SD21.33) / 83.3 (SD12.00)). The group mean of the average of five BpTRU readings (140.0 (SD17.71) / 79.8 (SD 10.46)) was not statistically different from the 24 hour daytime mean on ABPM (141.5 (SD 13.25) / 79.7 (SD 7.79)). Within patients, BpTRU average correlated significantly better with daytime ambulatory pressure than did clinic averages (BpTRU r = 0.571, clinic r = 0.145). Based on assessment of sensitivity and specificity at different cut-points, it is suggested that the initial treatment target using the BpTRU be set at <135/85 mmHG, but achievement of target should be confirmed using 24 hour ABPM.ConclusionThe BpTRU average better predicts ABPM than does the average of the blood pressures recorded on the patient chart from the three most recent visits. The BpTRU automatic clinic blood pressure monitor should be used as an adjunct to ABPM to effectively diagnose and monitor hypertension.