Managing hypertension in urban underserved subjects using telemedicine--a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated an Internet- and telephone-based telemedicine system for reducing blood pressure (BP) in underserved subjects with hypertension. METHODS: A total of 241 patients with systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg were randomized to usual care (C; n = 121) or telemedicine (T; n = 120). The T group reported BP, heart rate, weight, steps/day, and tobacco use twice weekly. The primary outcome was BP control at 6 months. RESULTS: Average age was 59.6 years, average body mass index was 33.7 kg/m(2), 79% were female, 81% were African American, 15% were white, 53% were at or below the federal poverty level, 18% were smokers, and 32% had diabetes. Six-month follow-up was achieved in 206 subjects (C: 107, T: 99). Goal BP was achieved in 52.3% in C and 54.5% in T (P = .43). Systolic BP change (C: -13.9 mm Hg, T: -18.2; P = .118) was similar in both groups. Subjects in the T group reported BP 7.7 ± 6.9 d/mo. Results were not affected by age, sex, ethnicity, education, or income. In nondiabetic T subjects, goal BP was achieved in 58.2% compared with 45.2% of diabetic T subjects (P = .024). Nondiabetic T subjects demonstrated a greater reduction in systolic BP (T: -19 ± 20 mm Hg, C: -12 ± 19 mm Hg; P = .037). No difference in BP response between C and T was noted in patients with diabetes. CONCLUSION: In hypertensive subjects, engagement in a system of care with or without telemedicine resulted in significant BP reduction. Telemedicine for nondiabetic patients resulted in a greater reduction in systolic BP compared with usual care. Telemedicine may be a useful tool for managing hypertension particularly among nondiabetic subjects.

A Single A1C >= 6.5% Accurately Identifies Type 2 Diabetes/Impaired Glucose Tolerance in African Americans.

OBJECTIVE: In 2010, the American Diabetes Association revised its criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes to include A1C ≥ 6.5%; however, this has remained controversial, particularly for African Americans. The objective of this pilot study was to examine the usefulness of a single A1C determination in comparison with a same day 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose type 2 diabetes in African Americans. METHODS: In sum, 195 oral glucose tolerance tests and A1Cs were obtained on the same day from 77 overweight and obese African American women and 6 men over a period of 15 months. RESULTS: A1C ≥ 6.5% was present in 31 of 195 patients, with 15 of these having type 2 diabetes by oral glucose tolerance test, another 12 having impaired glucose tolerance, and 4 having normal glucose tolerance. This gives a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 90%, with a positive predictive value of 48% and a negative predictive value of 91%. A1C ≤ 5.6%, proposed by the American Diabetes Association to indicate normal glucose tolerance, was present in only 28 patients, 10 (35.7%) of whom had normal glucose tolerance, whereas 18 (64.3%) had either impaired glucose tolerance (15 patients) or type 2 diabetes (3 patients). Fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL was present in 5 of 29 patients with type 2 diabetes (sensitivity, 17.2%; specificity, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: First, A1C ≥ 6.5% was a good "rule in" value to identify impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes (ie, patients at high risk for micro- and macrovascular complications). Second, A1C ≤ 5.6% did not rule out impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes. Last, fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL detected less than 1 in 5 cases with type 2 diabetes.