Clinical inertia in the pharmacological management of hypertension A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:100
作者
Milman, Tal [1 ]
Joundi, Raed A. [2 ]
Alotaibi, Naif M. [3 ]
Saposnik, Gustavo [4 ,5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Fac Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Div Neurol, Dept Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Div Neurosurg, Dept Surg, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, St Michaels Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Univ Toronto, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[7] Inst Clin Evaluat Sci, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
cardiovascular disease; clinical inertia; hypertension; quality improvement; risk factor management; therapeutic inertia; BLOOD-PRESSURE CONTROL; THERAPEUTIC INERTIA; TREATMENT INTENSIFICATION; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; DIABETES-MELLITUS; PRIMARY-CARE; PHYSICIAN; IMPACT; NONADHERENCE; UNCERTAINTY;
D O I
10.1097/MD.0000000000011121
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Clinical Inertia is defined as "failure of health care providers to initiate or intensify therapy according to current guidelines". This phenomenon is gaining increasing attention as a major cause of clinicians' failure to adequately manage hypertension, thus leading to an increased incidence of cardiovascular events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing clinical inertia in the pharmacological treatment of hypertension improve blood pressure (BP) control. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from the start of their database until October 3, 2017 for the MESH terms "Hypertension"or "Blood Pressure", their subheadings, and the keywords "Therapeutic Inertia" or "Clinical Inertia". Studies were included if they addressed pharmacologic hypertension management, clinical inertia, were randomized controlled trials, reported an outcome describing prescriber behavior, and were available in English. Data for the included studies was extracted by two independent observers. Quality of studies was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment. Data was pooled for statistical analysis using both fixed-and random-effects models. The primary study outcome was the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure control as defined by the Joint National Committee guidelines or study authors. Results: Of 474 citations identified, ten met inclusion criteria comprising a total of 26,871 patients, and eight were selected for meta-analysis. Interventions included Physician Education, Physician Reminders, Patient Education, Patient Reminders, Ambulatory BP Monitoring, Digital Medication Offerings, Physician Peer Visits, and Pharmacist-led Counselling. Pooled event rates revealed more patients with controlled BP in the intervention group versus control (55%, 95% CI 46-63% versus 45%, 95% CI 37-53%) and interventions significantly improved the odds of BP control (OR= 1.19, 95% CI= 1.12 - 1.27, P<. 001). Heterogeneity in the quantitative analysis was moderate. Conclusions& Relevance: Addressing clinical inertia through physician reminders, ambulatory BP monitoring, and educational interventions for primary care providers was associated with an improvement in blood pressure control. Our findings encourage further research to investigate strategies at reducing clinical inertia in the management of hypertension.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus [J].
Agustin Arguedas, Jose ;
Leiva, Viriam ;
Wright, James M. .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2013, (10)
[2]   Nonadherence, Clinical Inertia, or Therapeutic Inertia? [J].
Allen, J. Daniel ;
Curtiss, Frederic R. ;
Fairman, Kathleen A. .
JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE PHARMACY, 2009, 15 (08) :690-695
[3]   Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018 [J].
不详 .
DIABETES CARE, 2018, 41 :S55-S64
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2014, STROKE
[5]  
[Anonymous], MED TODAY
[6]  
[Anonymous], J CLIN HYPERTENS
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2017, CIRCULATION
[8]  
[Anonymous], FRONT NEUROL
[9]  
[Anonymous], BMC FAM PRACT
[10]   Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins [J].
Baigent, C ;
Keech, A ;
Kearney, PM ;
Blackwell, L ;
Buck, G ;
Pollicino, C ;
Kirby, A ;
Sourjina, T ;
Peto, R ;
Collins, R ;
Simes, J .
LANCET, 2005, 366 (9493) :1267-1278