The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK
In recent years, national and international guidelines have recommended the use of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension. Despite evidence of cost-effectiveness, critics expressed concerns this would increase cardiovascular morbidity. We assessed the impact of these cha...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Heart Association
2019
|
| _version_ | 1826259136098074624 |
|---|---|
| author | Lay-Flurrie, S Sheppard, J Stevens, R Mallen, C Heneghan, C Hobbs, F Williams, B Mant, J McManus, R |
| author_facet | Lay-Flurrie, S Sheppard, J Stevens, R Mallen, C Heneghan, C Hobbs, F Williams, B Mant, J McManus, R |
| author_sort | Lay-Flurrie, S |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In recent years, national and international guidelines have recommended the use of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension. Despite evidence of cost-effectiveness, critics expressed concerns this would increase cardiovascular morbidity. We assessed the impact of these changes on the incidence of hypertension, out-of-office monitoring and cardiovascular morbidity using routine clinical data from English general practices, linked to inpatient hospital, mortality, and socio-economic status data. We studied 3 937 191 adults with median follow-up of 4.2 years (49% men, mean age=39.7 years) between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2017. Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine the impact of changes to English hypertension guidelines in 2011 on incidence of hypertension (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included rate of out-of-office monitoring and cardiovascular events. Across the study period, incidence of hypertension fell from 2.1 to 1.4 per 100 person-years. The change in guidance in 2011 was not associated with an immediate change in incidence (change in rate=0.01 [95% CI, −0.18–0.20]) but did result in a leveling out of the downward trend (change in yearly trend =0.09 [95% CI, 0.04–0.15]). Ambulatory monitoring increased significantly in 2011/2012 (change in rate =0.52 [95% CI, 0.43–0.60]). The rate of cardiovascular events remained unchanged (change in rate =−0.02 [95% CI, −0.05–0.02]). In summary, changes to hypertension guidelines in 2011 were associated with a stabilisation in incidence and no increase in cardiovascular events. Guidelines should continue to recommend out-of-office monitoring for diagnosis of hypertension.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:45:05Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:0e3a0bd7-9c7a-4746-9a1c-42c152ecce8e |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:45:05Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | American Heart Association |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:0e3a0bd7-9c7a-4746-9a1c-42c152ecce8e2022-03-26T09:44:52ZThe impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UKJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0e3a0bd7-9c7a-4746-9a1c-42c152ecce8eEnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordAmerican Heart Association2019Lay-Flurrie, SSheppard, JStevens, RMallen, CHeneghan, CHobbs, FWilliams, BMant, JMcManus, RIn recent years, national and international guidelines have recommended the use of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension. Despite evidence of cost-effectiveness, critics expressed concerns this would increase cardiovascular morbidity. We assessed the impact of these changes on the incidence of hypertension, out-of-office monitoring and cardiovascular morbidity using routine clinical data from English general practices, linked to inpatient hospital, mortality, and socio-economic status data. We studied 3 937 191 adults with median follow-up of 4.2 years (49% men, mean age=39.7 years) between April 1, 2006 and March 31, 2017. Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine the impact of changes to English hypertension guidelines in 2011 on incidence of hypertension (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included rate of out-of-office monitoring and cardiovascular events. Across the study period, incidence of hypertension fell from 2.1 to 1.4 per 100 person-years. The change in guidance in 2011 was not associated with an immediate change in incidence (change in rate=0.01 [95% CI, −0.18–0.20]) but did result in a leveling out of the downward trend (change in yearly trend =0.09 [95% CI, 0.04–0.15]). Ambulatory monitoring increased significantly in 2011/2012 (change in rate =0.52 [95% CI, 0.43–0.60]). The rate of cardiovascular events remained unchanged (change in rate =−0.02 [95% CI, −0.05–0.02]). In summary, changes to hypertension guidelines in 2011 were associated with a stabilisation in incidence and no increase in cardiovascular events. Guidelines should continue to recommend out-of-office monitoring for diagnosis of hypertension. |
| spellingShingle | Lay-Flurrie, S Sheppard, J Stevens, R Mallen, C Heneghan, C Hobbs, F Williams, B Mant, J McManus, R The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK |
| title | The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK |
| title_full | The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK |
| title_fullStr | The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK |
| title_full_unstemmed | The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK |
| title_short | The impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the UK |
| title_sort | impact of changes to national hypertension guidelines on hypertension management and outcomes in the uk |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT layflurries theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT sheppardj theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT stevensr theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT mallenc theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT heneghanc theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT hobbsf theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT williamsb theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT mantj theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT mcmanusr theimpactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT layflurries impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT sheppardj impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT stevensr impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT mallenc impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT heneghanc impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT hobbsf impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT williamsb impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT mantj impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk AT mcmanusr impactofchangestonationalhypertensionguidelinesonhypertensionmanagementandoutcomesintheuk |