Why the study?
Does a comprehensive lifestyle intervention and home blood pressure-guided therapy improve blood pressure control in hypertensive patients in a primary care setting?
Does a comprehensive lifestyle intervention and home blood pressure-guided therapy improve blood pressure control in hypertensive patients in a primary care setting?
A comprehensive lifestyle and home blood pressure-guided intervention implemented by primary care staff did not significantly improve blood pressure control compared to standard care, highlighting challenges in translating research interventions to real-world practice.
Lifestyle intervention with home BP guidance does not outperform standard care for BP control in primary care; challenges translation of intensive interventions to routine practice.
BACKGROUND: The implementation of lifestyle modifications, home blood pressure (BP) measurement, and optimization of antihypertensive drug therapy have been shown to improve BP control in tightly controlled research settings. Our objective was to determine the effect of these interventions in a primary care setting, with the family practitioners and nurses serving as the interventionists. METHODS: Two hundred twenty hypertensive patients were recruited from 2 health centers that operated in the same building and covered similar populations, with the health centers randomized to function as intervention or control sites. Participants in the intervention group received repeated individual and group counseling from the centrally trained staff of the health center on healthy lifestyles. In addition, their antihypertensive drug therapy was guided by home BP measurements performed at 3-month intervals instead of by conventional office measurements. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, the between-group differences in the changes of lifestyle variables (body mass index, physical activity, dietary recalls, and urinary sodium/potassium) were nonsignificant. Antihypertensive treatment intensity increased in both groups, but the between-group difference was nonsignificant (P = 0.63). Office systolic/diastolic BP decreased significantly in the intervention (8/6 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and control (11/7 mm Hg; P < 0.001) groups, but the between-group differences were nonsignificant (P = 0.25/0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention did not improve BP control as suggested by many prior studies performed in controlled academic settings. This result could be attributed to a lack of motivation and incentives among the staff or because the population was relatively unselected. Greater attention to education and financial incentives might be required in typical primary care settings to obtain better results. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01915199.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niiranen et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: