Back

Heterogeneity of the Effect of Telemedicine Hypertension Management Approach on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of US-based Clinical Trials

Acharya, S.; Neupane, G.; Seals, A.; KC, M.; Giustini, D.; Sharma, S.; Taylor, Y. J.; Palakshappa, D.; Williamson, J. D.; Moore, J. B.; Bosworth, H.; Pokharel, Y.

2023-09-15 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.09.14.23295587 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTelemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) uses home blood pressure (BP) to guide pharmacotherapy and telemedicine-based self-management support (SMS). Optimal approach to implementing TM-HTN in the US is unknown. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to examine the effect of TM-HTN vs. usual clinic-based care on BP and assessed heterogeneity by patient- and clinician-related factors. We searched US-based randomized clinical trials among adults from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and two trial registries to 7/7/2023. Two authors extracted, and a third author confirmed data. We used trial-level differences in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP) and BP control rate at [&ge;]6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity of effect in univariable meta-regression and in pre-specified subgroups [clinicians leading pharmacotherapy (physician vs. non-physician), SMS (pharmacist vs. nurse), White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (>50% patients/trial), diabetes predominant trials ([&ge;]25% patients/trial) and in trials that have majority of both non-White patients and patients with diabetes vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials. ResultsThirteen, 11 and 7 trials were eligible for SBP, DBP and BP control, respectively. Differences in SBP, DBP and BP control rate were -7.3 mmHg (95% CI: - 9.4, -5.2), -2.7 mmHg (-4.0, -1.5) and 10.1% (0.4%, 19.9%), respectively, favoring TM-HTN. More BP reduction occurred in trials with non-physician vs. physician led pharmacotherapy (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.9/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), pharmacist vs. nurses provided SMS (9.3/4.1 mmHg vs. 5.6/1.0 mmHg, P=0.01 for SBP, P<0.01 for DBP), and White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.4/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), with no difference by diabetes predominant trials. Lower BP reduction occurred in both diabetes and non-White patient predominant trials vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials (4.5/0.9 mmHg vs. 9.5/4.2 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP). ConclusionsTM-HTN is more effective than clinic-based care in the US, particularly when non-physician led pharmacotherapy and pharmacist provided SMS. Non-White patient predominant trials seemed to achieve lesser BP reduction. Equity conscious, locally informed adaptation of TM-HTN is needed before wider implementation. Clinical PerspectiveO_ST_ABSWhat Is New?C_ST_ABSO_LIIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of US-based clinical trials, we found that telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) was more effective in reducing and controlling blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic based hypertension (HTN) care. C_LIO_LIThe BP reduction was more evident when pharmacotherapy was led by non-physician compared with physicians and HTN self-management support was provided by clinical pharmacists compared with nurses, C_LIO_LINon-White patient predominant trials achieved lesser BP reductions than White patient predominant trials. C_LI What Are the Clinical Implications?O_LIBefore wider implementation of TM-HTN intervention in the US, locally informed adaptation, such as optimizing the team-based HTN care approach, can provide more effective BP control. C_LIO_LIWithout equity focused tailoring, TM-HTN intervention implemented as such can exacerbate inequities in BP control among non-White patients in the US. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.9%
4
Hypertension
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
5
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
8
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
9
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
10
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
11
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
13
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
18
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
19
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 69%
1.0%
21
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Cardiovascular Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
25
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%