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 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.