Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure in Patients With Hypertension-Related Multi-morbidity: Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is effective when combined with co-interventions, but its efficacy varies in the presence of some co-morbidities. This study examined whether self-monitoring can reduce clinic BP in patients with hypertension-related co-morbidity. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of articles published in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials of self-monitoring of BP were selected and individual patient data (IPD) were requested. Contributing studies were prospectively categorized by whether they examined a low/high-intensity co-intervention. Change in BP and likelihood of uncontrolled BP at 12 months were examined according to number and type of hypertension-related co-morbidity in a one-stage IPD meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 trials were eligible, 16 of which were able to provide IPD for the primary outcome, including 6,522 (89%) participants with follow-up data. Self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic BP compared to usual care at 12-month follow-up, regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities (-3.12 mm Hg, [95% confidence intervals -4.78, -1.46 mm Hg]; P value for interaction with number of morbidities = 0.260). Intense interventions were more effective than low-intensity interventions in patients with obesity (P < 0.001 for all outcomes), and possibly stroke (P < 0.004 for BP control outcome only), but this effect was not observed in patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring lowers BP regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities, but may only be effective in conditions such obesity or stroke when combined with high-intensity co-interventions.

[Practical questions related to self-measurement of blood pressure]. / Praktische vragen bij het zelfmeten van de bloeddruk.

The results of self-measurements of blood pressure predict the risk of developing cardiovascular disease better than those of blood pressure measurements taken at the GP surgery or hospital. In spite of the increasing availability of devices for home measurement, exactly how, by whom, with what and when, blood pressure should be measured at home remains unclear. Self-measurement is to be recommended as a supplement to conventional blood pressure measurement, as, in this way, the white-coat effect and masked hypertension can be recognized. Self-measurement is only useful if it is carried using a validated, automatic, sphygmomanometer and measured in the correct way. It is essential that the patient be clearly instructed on how to do this. A limit for home measurement of 135/85 mmHg should be adhered to. When blood pressure measurements taken at home lead to a different conclusion than those taken at hospital or GP surgery (and if there is no white-coat or masked hypertension), it is recommended that the procedure be repeated. If after this, there is still a discrepancy between the results of these two methods of blood pressure measurement, ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure measurement will perhaps provide the definitive answer to the 'real' level of the patient's blood pressure.

Comparison of randomization techniques for clinical trials with data from the HOMERUS-trial.

BACKGROUND: Several methods of randomization are available to create comparable intervention groups in a study. In the HOMERUS-trial, we compared the minimization procedure with a stratified and a non-stratified method of randomization in order to test which one is most appropriate for use in clinical hypertension trials. A second objective of this article was to describe the baseline characteristics of the HOMERUS-trial. METHODS: The HOMERUS population consisted of 459 mild-to-moderate hypertensive subjects (54% males) with a mean age of 55 years. These patients were prospectively randomized with the minimization method to either the office pressure (OP) group, where antihypertensive treatment was based on office blood pressure (BP) values, or to the self-pressure (SP) group, where treatment was based on self-measured BP values. Minimization was compared with two other randomization methods, which were performed post-hoc: (i) non-stratified randomization with four permuted blocks, and (ii) stratified randomization with four permuted blocks and 16 strata. In addition, several factors that could influence outcome were investigated for their effect on BP by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: Minimization and stratified randomization did not lead to significant differences in 24-h ABPM values between the two treatment groups. Non-stratified randomization resulted in a significant difference in 24-h diastolic ABPM between the groups. Factors that caused significant differences in 24-h ABPM values were: region, centre of patient recruitment, age, gender, microalbuminuria, left ventricular hypertrophy and obesity. CONCLUSION: Minimization and stratified randomization are appropriate methods for use in clinical trials. Many outcome factors should be taken into account for their potential influence on BP levels. Recommendation. Due to the large number of potential outcome factors that can influence BP levels, minimization should be the preferred method for use in clinical hypertension trials, as it has the potential to randomize more outcome factors than stratified randomization.

Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study: rationale and study design of the HOMERUS trial.

The Home versus Office MEasurements, Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS) is a multicentre prospective study, primarily designed to examine in subjects with mild to moderate hypertension whether treatment decisions based on home blood pressure measurements can lead to reduction in the use of antihypertensive drugs and the associated costs, compared to office blood pressure measurements. After inclusion, 360 patients are randomized to two groups. In one group, antihypertensive therapy is based on blood pressure measured in the outpatient clinic: the office pressure (OP) group. In the other group, antihypertensive therapy is based on home blood pressure measurements: the self-pressure (SP) group. All readings, both in OP and in SP, are obtained with the same validated oscillometric device, the Omron 705 CP. Treatment decisions are taken by an independent physician at the coordinating centre, who is unaware whether the patient belongs to the SP or OP group. Following a standardized treatment schedule, blood pressure is targeted at 120-139 mmHg for systolic and 80-89 mmHg for diastolic pressure. Patients are followed for 1 year. At the start and at the end of the study, ambulatory blood pressure measurements are obtained as a reference. Microalbuminuria and echocardiography are assessed to evaluate the possible development of target organ damage. It is expected that, at the end of the trial, patients in both groups will have the same blood pressure, at the expense of more medication in the OP group. Therefore, a cost-minimization analysis will be performed first. If short-term effects appear not to be comparable for OP and SP, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess the value of the SP strategy in comparison to standard practice. In addition, medication compliance is recorded within random subgroups of the SP and OP groups by means of Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) V TrackCaps.