Browsing by Author "Stevens, Richard"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Individual patient data meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP-SMART): a protocol.
    (BMJ open, 2015-09) Tucker, Katherine L; Sheppard, James P; Stevens, Richard; Bosworth, Hayden B; Bove, Alfred; Bray, Emma P; Godwin, Marshal; Green, Beverly; Hebert, Paul; Hobbs, FD Richard; Kantola, Ilkka; Kerry, Sally; Magid, David J; Mant, Jonathan; Margolis, Karen L; McKinstry, Brian; Omboni, Stefano; Ogedegbe, Olugbenga; Parati, Gianfranco; Qamar, Nashat; Varis, Juha; Verberk, Willem; Wakefield, Bonnie J; McManus, Richard J

    Introduction

    Self-monitoring of blood pressure is effective in reducing blood pressure in hypertension. However previous meta-analyses have shown a considerable amount of heterogeneity between studies, only part of which can be accounted for by meta-regression. This may be due to differences in design, recruited populations, intervention components or results among patient subgroups. To further investigate these differences, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of self-monitoring of blood pressure will be performed.

    Methods and analysis

    We will identify randomised trials that have compared patients with hypertension who are self-monitoring blood pressure with those who are not and invite trialists to provide IPD including clinic and/or ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure at baseline and all follow-up points where both intervention and control groups were measured. Other data requested will include measurement methodology, length of follow-up, cointerventions, baseline demographic (age, gender) and psychosocial factors (deprivation, quality of life), setting, intensity of self-monitoring, self-monitored blood pressure, comorbidities, lifestyle factors (weight, smoking) and presence or not of antihypertensive treatment. Data on all available patients will be included in order to take an intention-to-treat approach. A two-stage procedure for IPD meta-analysis, stratified by trial and taking into account age, sex, diabetes and baseline systolic BP will be used. Exploratory subgroup analyses will further investigate non-linear relationships between the prespecified variables. Sensitivity analyses will assess the impact of trials which have and have not provided IPD.

    Ethics and dissemination

    This study does not include identifiable data. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and by international conference presentations.

    Conclusions

    IPD analysis should help the understanding of which self-monitoring interventions for which patient groups are most effective in the control of blood pressure.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
    (PLoS medicine, 2017-09) Tucker, Katherine L; Sheppard, James P; Stevens, Richard; Bosworth, Hayden B; Bove, Alfred; Bray, Emma P; Earle, Kenneth; George, Johnson; Godwin, Marshall; Green, Beverly B; Hebert, Paul; Hobbs, FD Richard; Kantola, Ilkka; Kerry, Sally M; Leiva, Alfonso; Magid, David J; Mant, Jonathan; Margolis, Karen L; McKinstry, Brian; McLaughlin, Mary Ann; Omboni, Stefano; Ogedegbe, Olugbenga; Parati, Gianfranco; Qamar, Nashat; Tabaei, Bahman P; Varis, Juha; Verberk, Willem J; Wakefield, Bonnie J; McManus, Richard J

    Background

    Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension.

    Methods and findings

    Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies.

    Conclusions

    Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.
    (Lancet (London, England), 2012-01) Heneghan, Carl; Ward, Alison; Perera, Rafael; Self-Monitoring Trialist Collaboration; Bankhead, Clare; Fuller, Alice; Stevens, Richard; Bradford, Kairen; Tyndel, Sally; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Ansell, Jack; Beyth, Rebecca; Bernardo, Artur; Christensen, Thomas Decker; Cromheecke, ME; Edson, Robert G; Fitzmaurice, David; Gadisseur, Alain PA; Garcia-Alamino, Josep M; Gardiner, Chris; Hasenkam, J Michael; Jacobson, Alan; Kaatz, Scott; Kamali, Farhad; Khan, Tayyaba Irfan; Knight, Eve; Körtke, Heinrich; Levi, Marcel; Matchar, David; Menéndez-Jándula, Bárbara; Rakovac, Ivo; Schaefer, Christian; Siebenhofer, Andrea; Souto, Juan Carlos; Sunderji, Rubina; Gin, Kenneth; Shalansky, Karen; Völler, Heinz; Wagner, Otto; Zittermann, Armin

    Background

    Uptake of self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation [corrected] has remained inconsistent, despite good evidence of their effectiveness. To clarify the value of self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation, we did a meta-analysis of individual patient data addressing several important gaps in the evidence, including an estimate of the effect on time to death, first major haemorrhage, and thromboembolism.

    Methods

    We searched Ovid versions of Embase (1980-2009) and Medline (1966-2009), limiting searches to randomised trials with a maximally sensitive strategy. We approached all authors of included trials and requested individual patient data: primary outcomes were time to death, first major haemorrhage, and first thromboembolic event. We did prespecified subgroup analyses according to age, type of control-group care (anticoagulation-clinic care vs primary care), self-testing alone versus self-management, and sex. We analysed patients with mechanical heart valves or atrial fibrillation separately. We used a random-effect model method to calculate pooled hazard ratios and did tests for interaction and heterogeneity, and calculated a time-specific number needed to treat.

    Findings

    Of 1357 abstracts, we included 11 trials with data for 6417 participants and 12,800 person-years of follow-up. We reported a significant reduction in thromboembolic events in the self-monitoring group (hazard ratio 0·51; 95% CI 0·31-0·85) but not for major haemorrhagic events (0·88, 0·74-1·06) or death (0·82, 0·62-1·09). Participants younger than 55 years showed a striking reduction in thrombotic events (hazard ratio 0·33, 95% CI 0·17-0·66), as did participants with mechanical heart valve (0·52, 0·35-0·77). Analysis of major outcomes in the very elderly (age ≥85 years, n=99) showed no significant adverse effects of the intervention for all outcomes.

    Interpretation

    Our analysis showed that self-monitoring and self-management of oral coagulation is a safe option for suitable patients of all ages. Patients should also be offered the option to self-manage their disease with suitable health-care support as back-up.

    Funding

    UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme, UK NIHR National School for Primary Care Research.