Targets and self monitoring in hypertension: randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether blood pressure control in primary care could be improved with the use of patient held targets and self monitoring in a practice setting, and to assess the impact of these on health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences, and costs. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight general practices in south Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: 441 people receiving treatment in primary care for hypertension but not controlled below the target of < 140/85 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the intervention group received treatment targets along with facilities to measure their own blood pressure at their general practice; they were also asked to visit their general practitioner or practice nurse if their blood pressure was repeatedly above the target level. Patients in the control group received usual care (blood pressure monitoring by their practice). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: change in systolic blood pressure at six months and one year in both intervention and control groups. Secondary outcomes: change in health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences of method of blood pressure monitoring, and costs. RESULTS: 400 (91%) patients attended follow up at one year. Systolic blood pressure in the intervention group had significantly reduced after six months (mean difference 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 0.8 mm Hg to 7.9 mm Hg)) but not after one year (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg (- 1.2 mm Hg to 6.6 mm Hg)). No overall difference was found in diastolic blood pressure, anxiety, health behaviours, or number of prescribed drugs. Patients who self monitored lost more weight than controls (as evidenced by a drop in body mass index), rated self monitoring above monitoring by a doctor or nurse, and consulted less often. Overall, self monitoring did not cost significantly more than usual care (251 pounds sterling (437 dollars; 364 euros) (95% confidence interval 233 pounds sterling to 275 pounds sterling) versus 240 pounds sterling (217 pounds sterling to 263 pounds sterling). CONCLUSIONS: Practice based self monitoring resulted in small but significant improvements of blood pressure at six months, which were not sustained after a year. Self monitoring was well received by patients, anxiety did not increase, and there was no appreciable additional cost. Practice based self monitoring is feasible and results in blood pressure control that is similar to that in usual care.

What is the prevalence of diabetic macular oedema involving the centre of the macula in patients undergoing digital diabetic retinopathy screening

Free Paper Sessions Design. Retrospective analysis. Purpose. To assess the prevalence of center-involving diabetic macular oedema (CIDMO) and risk factors. Methods. Retrospective review of patients who were screen positive for maculopathy (M1) during 2010 in East and North Birmingham. The CIDMO was diagnosed by qualitative identification of definite foveal oedema on optical coherence tomography (OCT). Results. Out of a total of 15,234 patients screened, 1194 (7.8%) were screen positive for M1 (64% bilateral). A total of 137 (11.5% of M1s) were diagnosed with macular oedema after clinical assessment. The OCT results were available for 123/137; 69 (56.1%) of these had CI-DMO (30 bilateral) which is 0.5% of total screens and 5.8% of those screen positive for M1. In those with CIDMO 60.9% were male and 63.8% Caucasian; 90% had type 2 diabetes and mean diabetes duration was 20 years (SD 9.7, range 2-48). Mean HbA1c was 8.34%±1.69, with 25% having an HbA1c =9%. Furthermore, 62% were on insulin, 67% were on antihypertensive therapy, and 64% were on a cholesterol-lowering drug. A total of 37.7% had an eGFR between 30% and 60% and 5.8% had eGFR <30. The only significant difference between the CIDMO and non-CIDMO group was mean age (67.83±12.26 vs 59.69±15.82; p=0.002). A total of 65.2% of those with CIDMO also had proliferative or preproliferative retinopathy in the worst eye and 68.1% had subsequently been treated with macular laser at the time of data review. Conclusions. The results show that the prevalence of CIDMO in our diabetic population was 0.5%. A significant proportion of macula oedema patients were found to have type 2 diabetes with long disease duration, suboptimal glycemic and hypertensive control, and low eGFR. The data support that medical and diabetic review of CIDMO patients is warranted particularly in the substantial number with poor glycemic control and if intravitreal therapies are indicated.

Is measurement of blood pressure worthwhile in the diabetic eye clinic?

Purpose - The UK Prospective Diabetic Study has confirmed the importance of blood pressure (BP) as a major risk factor for diabetic retinopathy (DR). We wanted to investigate whether measuring the BP in the diabetic eye clinic could identify new hypertensive patients and monitor control in existing ones. Patients and methods - We compared BP in patients attending the diabetic eye clinic with home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) and ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). In all, 106 patients attending a diabetic eye clinic were selected at random from clinic attendees. BP measurement (on an Omron 705 CP) was performed in the eye clinic and also compared to HBPM three times per day with an Omron 705 CP machine, and was compared to diabetic clinic measurements. In addition, 11 randomly chosen patients had 24 h ABPM to validate the above techniques. Results - In all, 106 patients (70 male and 36 female) were recruited for the study, of which 71 were known to be hypertensive on antihypertensive medication. Of the total, 75 patients (70.8%) had BP>140/85 in the eye clinic, of which 51 (68%) were known to be hypertensive on treatment and this was confirmed in 46 (90%) on HBPM. A total of, 24 patients (22.6%) were newly diagnosed as hypertensive in the eye clinic, which was confirmed by HBPM in 22 patients (92%). The mean BP of the measurements performed in the eye clinic was significantly higher than that carried out in the diabetic clinic (P<0.01). Tropicamide 1% and phenylephrine 2.5% eye drop instillation had no effect on BP. In 11 randomly chosen patients, 24 h ABPM validated both diabetic eye clinic and home BP measurements. Conclusion - Attendance at the diabetic eye clinic is an important chance to detect both new patients with systemic hypertension and those with inadequate BP control. Ophthalmologists should be encouraged to measure BP in their diabetic patients attending diabetic eye clinics, as it is an important risk factor for DR. On the basis of our findings, good BP control is a goal yet to be achieved in diabetic patients with retinopathy.