Prevalence and factors affecting home blood pressure documentation in routine clinical care: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Home blood pressure (BP) is closely linked to patient outcomes. However, the prevalence of its documentation has not been examined. The objective of this study was to analyze the prevalence and factors affecting documentation of home BP in routine clinical care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective study of 142,973 encounters of 9,840 hypertensive patients with diabetes from 2000 to 2005 was performed. The prevalence of recorded home BP and the factors associated with its documentation were analyzed. We assessed validity of home BP information by comparing the difference between home and office BP to previously published prospective studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Home BP was documented in narrative notes for 2.08% of encounters where any blood pressure was recorded and negligibly in structured data (EMR flowsheets). Systolic and diastolic home BP in narrative notes were lower than office BP readings by 9.6 and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both), consistent with prospective data. Probability of home BP documentation increased by 23.0% for each 10 mm Hg of office systolic BP (p < 0.0001), by 6.2% for each $10,000 in median income of zip code (p = 0.0055), and by 17.7% for each decade in the patient's age (p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Home BP readings provide a valid representation of the patient's condition, yet are seldom documented despite their potential utility in both patient care and research. Strong association between higher patient income and home BP documentation suggests that the cost of the monitors may be a limiting factor; reimbursement of home BP monitoring expenses should be pursued.</p

Hypertensive patients' use of blood pressure monitors stationed in pharmacies and other locations: a cross-sectional mail survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Blood pressure (BP) monitors are commonly stationed in public places such as pharmacies, but it is uncertain how many people with hypertension currently use them. We sought to estimate the proportion of hypertensive patients who use these types of monitors and examine whether use varies by demographic or health characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey of hypertensive adults enrolled in a practice based research network of 24 primary care practices throughout the state of North Carolina. We analyzed results using descriptive statistics and examined bivariate associations using chi-square and independent associations using logistic regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We received 530 questionnaires (76% response rate). Of 333 respondents (63%) who reported checking their BP in locations other than their doctor's office or home, 66% reported using a monitor stationed in a pharmacy. Younger patients more commonly reported using pharmacy monitors (48% among those < 45 years vs 35% of those over 65, p = 0.04). Blacks reported using them more commonly than whites (48% vs 39%, p = 0.03); and high school graduates more often than those with at least some college (50% vs 37%, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, younger age (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.00–2.21 for those age 45 to 65 years vs those > 65 years old) and high school education (aOR 1.74; 95% CI 1.13–2.58) were associated with use of pharmacy-stationed monitors, but Black race was not. Patients with diabetes, heart disease, or stroke were not more likely to use pharmacy-stationed monitors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Hypertensive patients' use of BP monitors located in pharmacies is common. Younger patients, Blacks, and those with high school education were slightly more likely to report using them. Because use of these monitors is so common, efforts to ensure their accuracy are important.</p

Application of Direct Renin Inhibition to Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease has serious implications with a high risk for progressive loss of renal function, increased cardiovascular events as well as a substantial financial burden. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is activated in chronic kidney disease, especially in diabetes and hypertension, which are the leading causes of chronic kidney disease. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) decrease the rate of progression of diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathy and are recommended therapy for chronic kidney disease. Key clinical trials supporting the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in chronic kidney disease are discussed. Recent developments in our understanding of RAAS biology and the use of direct renin inhibition are reviewed in the context of their potential impact on the prevention and management of chronic kidney disease. Despite the clinical success of ACE inhibitors and ARBs the rates of mortality and progression to renal failure remain high in these patient populations. ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy, in doses commonly used in clinical practice does not result in complete suppression of the RAAS. Aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, offers a novel approach to inhibit the RAAS in chronic kidney disease. High dose ARB therapy or combination therapies with ACE inhibitors and ARBs have shown beneficial effects on surrogate markers of chronic kidney disease. Early data based on urinary protein excretion rates as a surrogate marker for renal function suggest a possibly novel role for aliskiren alone or in combination with ARBs in chronic kidney disease

Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease

Background: Experimental and clinical data suggest that reducing inflammation without affecting lipid levels may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet, the inflammatory hypothesis of atherothrombosis has remained unproved. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of canakinumab, a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1β, involving 10,061 patients with previous myocardial infarction and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of 2 mg or more per liter. The trial compared three doses of canakinumab (50 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg, administered subcutaneously every 3 months) with placebo. The primary efficacy end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: At 48 months, the median reduction from baseline in the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level was 26 percentage points greater in the group that received the 50-mg dose of canakinumab, 37 percentage points greater in the 150-mg group, and 41 percentage points greater in the 300-mg group than in the placebo group. Canakinumab did not reduce lipid levels from baseline. At a median follow-up of 3.7 years, the incidence rate for the primary end point was 4.50 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group, 4.11 events per 100 person-years in the 50-mg group, 3.86 events per 100 person-years in the 150-mg group, and 3.90 events per 100 person-years in the 300-mg group. The hazard ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the 50-mg group, 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07; P = 0.30); in the 150-mg group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.021); and in the 300-mg group, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.031). The 150-mg dose, but not the other doses, met the prespecified multiplicity-adjusted threshold for statistical significance for the primary end point and the secondary end point that additionally included hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization (hazard ratio vs. placebo, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; P = 0.005). Canakinumab was associated with a higher incidence of fatal infection than was placebo. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for all canakinumab doses vs. placebo, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P = 0.31). Conclusions: Antiinflammatory therapy targeting the interleukin-1β innate immunity pathway with canakinumab at a dose of 150 mg every 3 months led to a significantly lower rate of recurrent cardiovascular events than placebo, independent of lipid-level lowering. (Funded by Novartis; CANTOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01327846.