Key result
A dietitian-led telehealth lifestyle intervention did not significantly reduce 12-week 24-hour systolic BP compared to minimal support (-6.73 vs -4.92 mm Hg; P=0.2).
Why the study?
Limited data exist on the benefits on blood pressure of lifestyle behavior change delivered using telehealth and web-based applications with varied support.
Does a dietitian-led telehealth lifestyle intervention improve 24-hour systolic BP in participants with elevated BP and BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to minimal support?
RCT (n=187)
Yes
Does a dietitian-led telehealth lifestyle intervention improve 24-hour systolic BP in participants with elevated BP and BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to minimal support?
Absolute Event Rate: -6.73% vs -4.92%
p-value: p=0.2
A dietitian-led telehealth lifestyle intervention did not significantly reduce 24-hour systolic BP more than minimal support, though it improved secondary cardiometabolic outcomes like sleep BP and physical activity.
Does not warrant adoption of dietitian-led telehealth over minimal support for ambulatory SBP; confirms limited efficacy of this intervention on primary BP endpoint.
Background Limited data exist on the benefits of lifestyle behavior change delivered using telehealth and web‐based applications with varied support on blood pressure (BP). Methods and Results We conducted a 2‐site randomized controlled trial at Geisinger (January 2019–March 2021) to compare the efficacy of 2 remotely delivered strategies using web‐based applications in participants with 24‐hour systolic BP 120–160 mm Hg and body mass index ≥25 kg/m 2 . Both arms received access to web‐based applications and the same lifestyle guidance per American Heart Association guidelines. One arm received minimal nonclinical staff support, and the other arm received dietitian support with motivational interviewing during weekly calls. The primary outcome was 12‐week change in 24‐hour systolic BP. A total of 187 participants were randomly assigned, with 156 (83.4%) completing the trial. In both arms, 24‐hour systolic BP was reduced at follow‐up, but the difference in BP change was not significant (dietitian‐led arm, −6.73 mm Hg [95% CI, −8.64 to −4.82]; minimal‐support arm, −4.92 [95% CI, −7.01 to −2.77]; P comparing groups=0.2). The dietitian‐support arm had greater 12‐week improvements in the secondary outcomes sleep systolic BP (mean, −6.92 versus −1.45; P =0.004), sleep diastolic BP (−3.31 versus 0.73; P =0.001), and self‐reported physical activity (866 versus −243 metabolic equivalent task minutes per week; P =0.01) and tended to have improvements in weight loss (−5.11 versus −3.89 kg; P =0.1) and Healthy Eating Index–2015 score (9.23 versus 6.43 units; P =0.09). Conclusions Both the dietitian‐ and minimal‐support interventions reduced 24‐hour systolic BP similarly, although the dietitian‐led intervention led to greater improvements in several secondary cardiometabolic outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03700710.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Elevated blood pressure and overweight/obesity (n=187). Dietitian support with motivational interviewing and web-based applications vs. Minimal nonclinical staff support and web-based applications was evaluated on 12-week change in 24-hour systolic BP (p=0.2). A dietitian-led telehealth lifestyle intervention did not significantly reduce 12-week 24-hour systolic BP compared to minimal support (-6.73 vs -4.92 mm Hg; P=0.2).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: