Hypertension In General Practice Research Articles

A clinical audit of the quality of care of hypertension in general practice

Clinical audits monitor the use of particular interventions, or the care received by patients, against agreed standards. Any departures from "best practice" can then be examined, and causes can be determined and acted upon. The Ministry of Health (MOH), Jamaica, has recently published standards of care for hypertension. The medical records of a convenience sample of 125 hypertensive patients being managed by five current family medicine residents in their respective primary care practices were audited Initial results showed limited adherence to the MOH recommended hypertension management guidelines. The same practices were re-audited after an interval of six months, during which time the physicians were sensitized to the results of the preliminary audit. Marked improvements were noted in the second audit. Assessment for co-risk factors for hypertension-related diseases improved: nutritional advice (33% to 74%), smoking and alcohol intake history (40% to 65%) and history taking of physical activity (30% to 47%). Assessment for target organ damage also improved: fundoscopy done (11% to 54%), foot examination done (30% to 58%) and yearly electrolytes done (28% to 62%). There are clear gaps between current practice and standards that exist internationally and locally for management of hypertension. The MOH needs to disseminate and educate general practitioners about the standards of care guidelines.

An Empirical Model for the Development of Disease Management Programs in General Practice

Objective: The aim of this research was to develop an empirically derived methodological model for the development of disease management programs in general practice. The model was developed applying the example of hypertension. Methods: Using a rapid appraisal framework, empirical investigations, which included structured panel discussions, face-to-face structured interviews and formal presentations, were conducted to design, test and confirm the disease management model. A broad range of stakeholders were consulted from general practice, other health providers, industry, federal government and consumers. Results: The outcome of the research was a testable definition of disease management for hypertension, and the Australian Disease Management Approach to Hypertension in General Practice (ADAGE) for patients at low to high risk of major cardiovascular events. The central platform of this program is an information, communication technology package for risk assessment and management, plus access to a dietician commissioned by the program and a tailored suite of audiovisual and written material. Conclusion: This study used hypertension to demonstrate a model for the development of theoretically sound disease management models for application in general practice. The ADAGE program is currently under evaluation in a cluster randomized trial of 76 general practices in South Australia and Victoria in both metropolitan and rural settings. It is anticipated that this model will contribute to the development of other disease management programs for addressing chronic disease.

Metoprolol Succinate SR plus Hydrochlorothiazide (Beloc-Zok?? Comp) in Patients with Essential Hypertension in General Practice

Objective Low-dose combination treatment for patients with essential hypertension has received growing interest since the introduction of recent guidelines. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed low-dose combination of once-daily metoprolol succinate 95mg (slow-release Zok) plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5mg in daily practice.

Outcome survey in unselected hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: effects of ace inhibition

Although the benefit of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in diabetic nephropathy is well documented in double-blind randomized, controlled clinical trials, it is uncertain whether the benefit extends to unselected patients with diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension in general practice. In 2504 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (mean age 63 ± 10 years) blood pressure, cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic parameters were assessed at baseline and during a treatment period of 1 year with the ACE inhibitor cilazapril by primary care physicians. The average dose of cilazapril was 2.5 mg/day. Outcome measures were blood pressure, serum creatinine, proteinuria (dip stick), HbA 1c levels, evaluation of edema, and exertional dyspnea. In the study cohort, systolic blood pressure decreased by 24 ± 17 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by 12 ± 11 mm Hg. An increase in serum creatinine (> 0.2 mg/dL) occurred more frequently in patients with than in those without renal involvement (19% v 7%; P < .05). Serum creatinine decreased more frequently in patients with renal involvement than in those without (26% ± 4% v 12% ± 3.8%; P < .05). Overall renal function in patients with diabetic nephropathy ( n = 318) improved (2.1 ± 1.6 mg/dL v 1.7 ± 1.4 mg/dL; P < .05). The frequency of proteinuria was lower after 1 year than at baseline (62% ± 9% v 82% ± 8%; P < .05). Metabolic control of diabetes mellitus improved in parallel (median HbA 1c 8.0% v 7.0%; P < .01). Scores for edema formation and exertional dyspnea improved as well ( P < .01). In this outcome survey of unselected patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension, the ACE inhibitor cilazapril effectively lowered blood pressure, which was associated with an improvement in glucose metabolism, cardiac function, and renal function.

Blood Pressure Levels in Treated Hypertensive Patients in General Practice in Norway

The aim of this study was to examine the blood pressure (BP) levels in patients treated for essential hypertension in 1816 patients in general practice in Norway. The study was based on an optical readable questionnaire filled out by the physician including information about systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP, gender, age, body weight, smoking habits and all pharmaceutical treatment given. Sixty-four per cent of the patients were treated with one antihypertensive drug. Only 22.3% of the women and 30.7% of the men (p < 0.05) had BP 140/90 mmHg. When BP < 160/95 was used as criterion for BP control, the fraction of patients was 50%. The fraction of patients with DBP 80 mmHg was 26% in the whole group of patients. DBP 90 mmHg was achieved in 74% and SBP 140 mmHg in 30% of the patients. The BP control was less in women and in patients above 60 years of age. Patients on combination therapy were no better controlled than those on monotherapy. Based on our results, the proportion of hypertensive patients on drug treatment with insufficient BP control is too high. Efforts should be made to improve the medical treatment of hypertension in general practice in Norway.

Sex differences in the medication choice for hypertension in general practice. A study with written case simulations.

The objective of this study was to explore explanations for the preference of physicians to prescribe beta-blockers to hypertensive men and diuretics to hypertensive women. A qualitative study among 12 family physicians was conducted with a combination of written case simulations, semi-structured interviews and statements on attitudes of physicians towards antihypertensive drug choice. Among the male hypertensive cases the most frequently prescribed drugs were beta-blockers, whereas among the female hypertensive cases diuretics were more often prescribed. Physician characteristics associated with a preferred prescribing of beta-blockers to hypertensive men and diuretics to hypertensive women were: older age (no residency in family medicine), the believe that beta-blockers are more effective in men with regard to lowering blood pressure and that diuretics are more effective in women, a non-evidence based attitude and a sex-related attitude towards the choice of beta-blockers and diuretics in general, and in particular towards the prescribing of beta-blockers to hypertensive men because men have a higher absolute risk of coronary heart disease than women. An additional explanation for these findings may be the higher prevalence of ankle oedema among women. Patient characteristics associated with more prescribing of beta-blockers to hypertensive men and diuretics to hypertensive women were: current employment and a "high-risk" profile in terms of blood pressure level and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Although, most considerations underlying a preferred prescribing of beta-blockers to hypertensive men and diuretics to hypertensive women were not evidence-based, the actual choice of antihypertensive drug (diuretic or beta-blocker) was evidence-based. These considerations may also play a role in the sex difference in the choice of calcium antagonists and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and require further investigation.

Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertension in general practice: Evaluation of patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based clinical decision support system

Objective - To evaluate the implementation of clinical guidelines for hypertension in general practice by use of a computer-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) and a specific implementation strategy. Evaluation of patient outcome. Design - Randomised study with health centres as units. The intervention group had the CDSS installed and made ready for use, doctors and assistants were trained and received a user-manual, the doctors were offered telephone repetitions, a seminar in risk intervention and, at the same seminar, further demonstration of the CDSS. The doctors received baseline registrations with information of how they treated their own hypertensive patients, and use of the CDSS was checked repeatedly. Setting - General practice in Sør- and Nord-Trø

Prevalence, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in the French Population: Data From a Survey on High Blood Pressure in General Practice, 1994

A survey was conducted in a cohort of 235 general practitioners (GP) selected by Sofres Médical who were representative of the French medical population, to measure the percentage of patients with hypertension, treated hypertensives and patients with controlled hypertension. Data were collected over 1 week of office consultation. Practitioners were initially instructed to use the same type of mercury sphygmomanometer, equipped with pneumatic cuffs of different sizes. Three consecutive blood pressure (BP) measurements were made and the last two were recorded. Practitioners had to carry out their own survey over a period of 1 week on all patients > 18 years of age who visited their offices. Patients were considered as hypertensive (HP) if the mean of the two recorded BP measurements was ≥ 140/90 mm Hg or if they were taking antihypertensive drug treatment. Three cutoff points were used to define controlled hypertension: < 140/90 mm Hg (overall population of HP), < 160/95 mm Hg (HP < 65 years of age), and < 160/90 mm Hg (HP ≥ 65 years of age). Among 12,351 patients (mean age, 48.6 years; women, 58%), 5020 were HP, (41%) of whom 2035 were without treatment (41%) and 2985 were receiving antihypertensive drug treatment (59%). Two hundred-thirty patients (4.6%) remained at high risk with moderate or severe hypertension (BP ≥ 180 [systolic] or 105 [diastolic] mm Hg), ie, 1 patient/week/GP. The study confirms the high prevalence of hypertension in general practice and shows that 7 of 10 patients have an acceptable control of their BP (< 160/95 or < 160/90 mm Hg according to age) but only 24% of treated HP achieved the target of a BP level < 140/90 mm Hg, representing 28% of the 18 to 64 year old group and 21% of the elderly group. French GP did not choose an optimal control, and the medical community is waiting for answers to crucial questions, ie, does optimal BP control significantly improve the absolute cardiovascular risk? How far should blood pressure be lowered?

A collaborative audit of the management of hypertension in general practice.

We carried out an audit of the management of essential hypertension in general practice, against standards based on current guidelines. We examined the records of 882 hypertensive subjects (on medication)...

Implementing Clinical Guidelines in the Treatment of Hypertension in General Practice

Discrepancies between clinical guidelines and clinical practice call for practical implementation strategies. This study evaluates the implementation of clinical guidelines for hypertension in general practice with a specific computer-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) as part of the intervention. We carried out a randomized study of general practice health centres in Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag counties in Norway (population 380000). A total of 17 health centres were included, with 24 doctors and 984 patients in the intervention group. Data from 887 patients was used in the analyses. There were 12 health centres with 29 doctors and 1255 patients in the control group. Data from 1127 control patients was used in the analyses. The main outcome measures were doctor's behaviour, measured by adherence to registration of recommended variables in the Norwegian clinical guidelines for hypertension. The aim of the intervention was to lower the fractions of patients without registrations. However, there were no clinically significant differences between the intervention group and the control group for fractions of patients without registration of blood pressure (intervention group 14.3%, control group 14.2%) or serum cholesterol (62.3% vs 56.8%) during 12 months, nor, during 18 months, for fractions of patients without a registration of cigarette smoking (82.9% vs 87.1%), cardiovascular inheritance (79.5% vs 73.4%) and body mass index (81.5% vs 89.2%). One or several variables necessary for calculation of risk score for myocardial infarction were missing in 91.7% of patients in the intervention group and 91.9% of patients in the control group. Large centre variations were shown for all variables. Implementation of clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertensive patients in general practice, by means of a CDSS and several procedures for implementation did not result in clinically significant changes in the doctors' behaviour. Of importance are both the lack of user-friendliness of the specific CDSS and problems in performing time-consuming multidimensional procedures.

Structured patient education for out-patients with hypertension in general practice: a model project in Germany.

In a model project, office-based physicians in two regions of Germany provided a structured treatment and teaching programme for out-patients with hypertension. The project was carried out in co-operation with the German Hypertension League and designed to evaluate the practicability and efficacy of the implementation in routine primary health care. A total of 111 primary health care practices in two German districts who had participated in a training course were interviewed. In 43 of these offices documented data of all patients who had received the standardised treatment and teaching were evaluated. The programme was well received by the physicians of which 81% rated the training course and 93% the teaching material as 'very good' or 'good'. A total of 466 patients were trained. Data collected on 272 patients (22 weeks after the intervention) demonstrated the efficacy of the programme at treatment level: reduction of body weight (2 kg, P < 0.001) and blood pressure (from systolic 158+/-18 to 148+/-17 mm Hg, P < 0.001; diastolic 91 +/-9 to 86+/-9, P < 0.001). Sixty-five per cent of patients learned for the first time how to perform blood pressure self-monitoring during the programme. The number of blood pressure readings by the patients' increased significantly from 1+/-3 measurements per week before, to 8+/-7 measurements per week after the programme (P < 0.001). The results of the study demonstrate the practicability and efficacy of the implementation of the programme for patients with hypertension into routine primary health care.

Hypertension management in general practice.

The views of 542 general practitioners (GPs) and 64 consultant physicians about the management of patients with hypertension in general practice were sought by postal questionnaire. 325 (60%) of the GPs and 45 (70%) of the consultant physicians completed the questionnaire. For a 40-year-old man with no other cardiovascular risk factors most general practitioners would intervene with drugs at blood pressure levels specified in published guidelines, whereas many local consultants and older GPs would consider drug treatment at lower levels. About 75% of GPs, compared with 87% of consultants, would suggest drug treatment in a woman of 70 years with a BP of 180/100 mmHg. Although consultants tended to expect GPs to order more tests when investigating a patient with hypertension than the GPs actually did, both GPs and consultants would order similar types of investigations apart from imaging. Consultants had different expectations about the frequency with which general practitioners should record patients' blood pressure and the GPs' ability to prevent cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. Many older GPs and consultants seem to have unrealistic expectations of the value of treating patients with hypertension.

15 Effect of guidelines on the management of hypertension in general practice

On behalf of the Lothian Hypertension Group University Department of Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK

Prescribing Medication Versus Promoting Behavioural Change: A Trial of the Use of Lifestyle Management to Replace Drug Treatment of Hypertension in General Practice

Antihypertensive drug therapy may reverse the cardiac and vascular structural changes associated with sustained hypertension. This may enable appropriate blood pressure levels to be maintained with milder forms of therapy (such as lifestyle interventions) which will minimise any potential adverse effects of pharmacological therapy. The HEART project was conducted in the general practice setting and aimed to determine whether lifestyle strategies, such as increased physical activity and dietary modification, could be substituted for drug therapy in patients who had been well controlled on antihypertensive medication. In addition to objective measures of blood pressure and risk factor outcomes, attitudes and perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) and patients involved in the trial were assessed through focus group discussion and personal interviews. Of the 44 patients recruited to the trial, 41 (93%) participated in structured interviews of 20–40 minutes duration conducted in person or by telephone. Of 78 GPs working in the western suburbs of Melbourne who were approached about the trial, 50% were willing to participate. Of these, 13 (34%) recruited study patients. Of these 13, 10 (77%) participated in a 2-hour focus group discussion which was audiotaped for later transcription and analysis. Despite being enthusiastic about lifestyle interventions in principle, nearly all of these GPs felt resistant to the concept of withdrawing medication in well-controlled subjects. They were generally surprised to see that many patients (15 of 20 patients: 75%) were able to maintain appropriate blood pressure levels following drug therapy withdrawal and adoption of minimal lifestyle changes. GPs felt that the patients' eagerness to come off medication was the major incentive for patients to participate in the trial. This was corroborated by many patients indicating a desire not to be taking any medication. The majority of patients reported making minor changes in lifestyle behaviours leading to most being able to remain off therapy or to have drug dosage requirements reduced. The major barriers to maintaining lifestyle change were family and work stresses and the perception of the intervention not being treated as a therapy thus not at the same level of importance as a treatment method as drug therapy. It appears that a select group of hypertensive patients, highly motivated by the prospect of drug therapy withdrawal, were interested in and willing to trial a lifestyle behaviour change approach for their blood pressure management. The majority reported that they had been able to adopt small but meaningful changes in exercise and dietary habits through the provision of stand-alone self-help materials and support from their GP. Of these patients, 75% remained normotensive without drug therapy after a 9-month follow-up period.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Isradipine in Hypertension as Used in General Practice in a Developing Country (Pakistan)

This open-label trial of isradipine was carried out in 3422 outpatients by 893 general practitioners to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of isradipine as monotherapy in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Patients received 2.5 mg isradipine twice daily as monotherapy for 6 weeks following a placebo wash-out period of 1 week. After 6 weeks of active treatment, diastolic blood pressure was significantly reduced from 106 +/- 7.7 to 89.4 +/- 8.0 mm Hg (P < .001). Systolic blood pressure also decreased significantly, from 166.8 +/- 19.6 to 141.8 +/- 15.7 mm Hg (P < .001). Blood pressure was normalized in 75.68% of the patients. A total of 629 patients (19%) reported adverse events, 79 (2.3%) of whom withdrew from the study for this reason. The most common side-effects were headache (8.7%), palpitations/tachycardia (3.8%), vertigo (2.89%) and flushing (1.00%). In conclusion, 2.5 mg isradipine twice daily is a safe, effective, and well tolerated form of monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension in general practice in a developing country (Pakistan).

Tolerability of Isradipine in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension in General Practice

Tolerability of Isradipine in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension in General Practice

Tolerability of Isradipine in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension in General Practice

The tolerability of isradipine was evaluated in an open trial of patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension as treated in general practice. The primary objective was to identify all adverse reactions, especially those that were newly occurring (greater than or equal to 6 reports), with a frequency greater than 1/1,000. Over 1,100 general practitioners and 5,526 patients participated in this trial. After a 2-week washout period, and a 3-week placebo run-in, patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than or equal to 95 mm Hg were initially given isradipine at 1.25 mg twice daily. After 4 weeks, doses were doubled if DBP was greater than 90 mm Hg. If, after a further 4 weeks with doubled dosages, the DBP was still greater than 90 mm Hg, a second (nonspecified free-choice) antihypertensive agent was added to the treatment. Adverse events were recorded by open questioning. The incidence of adverse events was found to be similar to that with placebo; adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity and disappeared over time. No newly occurring adverse events were found. In conclusion, isradipine is safe and well tolerated at effective antihypertensive doses in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension as treated in general practice.

Doxazosin: A study in a cohort of patients with hypertension in general practice—An interim report

The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of doxazosin in a substantial cohort of hypertensive patients drawn from general practice. A total of 4027 patients entered the study, 1472 of whom (36.6%) were untreated hypertensive patients. Patients were not advised to change diet, smoking habit, or life-style during the study. Twenty-one percent were cigarette smokers, and concurrent diabetes was present in 2.3%. Baseline blood cholesterol exceeded 200 mg/dl (5.2 mmol/L) in 90% and 250 mg/dl (6.5 mmol/L) in 56% of patients. The mean decrease in blood pressure produced by doxazosin was 22 15 mm Hg after 10 weeks of therapy; there was a mean decrease in heart rate of 1 beat/min. The mean maintenance dose for all patients was 3.1 mg/day. Side effects considered related or possibly related to treatment were reported in 705 patients. Treatment was discontinued in 233 patients (5.8%) because of adverse events related or possibly related to treatment with doxazosin. Doxazosin produced a significant ( p < 0.001) decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels and a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and the ratio of high-density lipoprotein:total cholesterol. The potential reduction in 10-year coronary heart disease risk (according to the Framingham equation) was calculated to be 20.4%.

Tolerability of Ramipril in a Multicenter Study of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension in General Practice

In this study, the tolerability and safety of ramipril, as monotherapy and in combination with a low dose of furosemide, were assessed in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in general practice. After a placebo run-in phase, patients received ramipril as monotherapy in a dose of 2.5 to 5 mg daily for 6 weeks. Nonresponders (diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg) entered a double-blind treatment period, and received either 10 mg of ramipril daily, or 5 mg of ramipril in combination with 20 mg of furosemide daily. The tolerability of the study medication was assessed by reported adverse events, and by monitoring blood cell count, electrolytes, serum creatinine, fasting blood glucose, and apolipoproteins AI and B. Of a total of 770 patients who entered the placebo run-in phase, 661 patients were enrolled in the first active treatment period. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, cough, dizziness, asthenia, cramps, diarrhea, and nausea, but not all of these events were related to ramipril treatment. A total of 38 patients discontinued active treatment due to nonserious adverse events, mainly cough, dizziness, or diarrhea. There appeared to be a relationship between the prevalence of cough and ramipril dosage; however, an increased incidence of cough was also observed during outbreaks of influenza in France. There were no significant changes in laboratory variables during the study.

Tolerability of Ramipril in a Multicenter Study of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension in General Practice

In this study, the tolerability and safety of ramipril, as monotherapy and in combination with a low dose of furosemide, were assessed in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in general practice. After a placebo run-in phase, patients received ramipril as monotherapy in a dose of 2.5 to 5 mg daily for 6 weeks. Nonresponders (diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg) entered a double-blind treatment period, and received either 10 mg of ramipril daily, or 5 mg of ramipril in combination with 20 mg of furosemide daily. The tolerability of the study medication was assessed by reported adverse events, and by monitoring blood cell count, electrolytes, serum creatinine, fasting blood glucose, and apolipoproteins AI and B. Of a total of 770 patients who entered the placebo run-in phase, 661 patients were enrolled in the first active treatment period. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, cough, dizziness, asthenia, cramps, diarrhea, and nausea, but not all of these events were related to ramipril treatment. A total of 38 patients discontinued active treatment due to nonserious adverse events, mainly cough, dizziness, or diarrhea. There appeared to be a relationship between the prevalence of cough and ramipril dosage; however, an increased incidence of cough was also observed during outbreaks of influenza in France. There were no significant changes in laboratory variables during the study.