Key result
Clinical results comparing 6-month versus 3-month telemedicine intervals for hypertension are not reported.
Why the study?
The optimal in-person visit interval for video-based telemedicine among patients with hypertension remained unreported in Japan.
Does video-based telemedicine with in-person visits at 6-month intervals maintain systolic blood pressure control compared to 3-month intervals in patients with essential hypertension?
RCT
Cluster randomized
Yes
Does video-based telemedicine with in-person visits at 6-month intervals maintain systolic blood pressure control compared to 3-month intervals in patients with essential hypertension?
In-person visits at 6-month intervals during video-based telemedicine are noninferior to 3-month intervals for blood pressure control in stable hypertension, while improving patient satisfaction and reducing indirect costs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports 6-month in-person intervals in video telemedicine for stable hypertension; confirms noninferiority to 3-month intervals for systolic BP control.
BACKGROUND: Introducing telemedicine in outpatient treatment may improve patient satisfaction and convenience. However, the optimal in-person visit interval for video-based telemedicine among patients with hypertension remains unreported in Japan. OBJECTIVE: We determined the optimal in-person visit interval for video-based telemedicine among patients with hypertension. METHODS: This was a cluster randomized controlled noninferiority trial. The target sites were 8 clinics in Japan that had a telemedicine system, and the target patients were individuals with essential hypertension. Among patients receiving video-based telemedicine, those who underwent in-person visits at 6-month intervals were included in the intervention group, and those who underwent in-person visits at 3-month intervals were included in the control group. The follow-up period of the participants was 6 months. The primary end point of the study was the change in systolic blood pressure, and the secondary end points were the rate of treatment continuation after 6 months, patient satisfaction, health economic evaluation, and safety evaluation. RESULTS: Overall, 64 patients were enrolled. Their mean age was 54.5 (SD 10.3) years, and 60.9% (39/64) of patients were male. For the primary end point, the odds ratio for the estimated difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between the 2 groups was 1.18 (90% CI -3.68 to 6.04). Notably, the criteria for noninferiority were met. Patient satisfaction was higher in the intervention group than in the control group. Furthermore, the indirect costs indicated that lost productivity was significantly lesser in the intervention group than in the control group. Moreover, the treatment continuation rate did not differ between the intervention and control groups, and there were no adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure control status and safety did not differ between the intervention and control groups. In-person visits at 6-month intervals may cause a societal cost reduction and improve patient satisfaction during video-based telemedicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000040953; https://tinyurl.com/2p8devm9.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nishizaki et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Essential hypertension. Video-based telemedicine with in-person visits at 6-month intervals vs. Video-based telemedicine with in-person visits at 3-month intervals was evaluated on Change in systolic blood pressure. Video-based telemedicine with 6-month in-person visit intervals was evaluated against 3-month intervals for patients with hypertension, but specific clinical results were not reported in this document.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: