Rose Adam J, Berlowitz Dan R, Manze Meredith, Orner Michelle B, Kressin Nancy R
Center for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, MA 01730, USA.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009 Jul;2(4):385-91. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.838649. Epub 2009 Jun 16.
Greater treatment intensification (TI) improves hypertension control. However, we do not know the ideal way to measure TI for research and quality improvement efforts. We compared the ability of different TI measures to predict blood pressure (BP) control.
We enrolled 819 hypertensive outpatients from an urban academic hospital. Each patient was assigned 3 scores to characterize TI. The any/none score divides patients into those who had any therapy increases during the study versus none. The norm-based method models the chance of a medication increase at each visit, then scores each patient based on whether they received more or fewer medication increases than predicted. The standard-based method is similar to the norm-based method but expects a medication increase whenever the blood pressure is uncontrolled. We compared the ability of these scores to predict the final systolic blood pressure (SBP). The any/none score showed a paradoxical result: any therapy increase was associated with SBP 4.6 mm Hg higher than no increase (P<0.001). The norm-based method score did not predict SBP in a linear fashion (P=0.18); further investigation revealed a U-shaped relationship between the norm-based method score and SBP. However, the standard-based method score was a strong linear predictor of SBP (2.1 mm Hg lower for each additional therapy increase per 10 visits, P<0.001). Similarly, the standard-based method predicted dichotomized blood pressure control, as measured by SBP <140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.30; P<0.001).
Our results suggest that standard-based method is the preferred measure of treatment intensity for hypertension care.
更大程度的治疗强化(TI)可改善高血压控制情况。然而,我们尚不清楚用于研究和质量改进工作的TI理想测量方法。我们比较了不同TI测量方法预测血压(BP)控制的能力。
我们纳入了一家城市学术医院的819名高血压门诊患者。为每位患者分配3个分数以表征TI。“有/无”分数将患者分为在研究期间有任何治疗增加的患者与没有治疗增加的患者。基于规范的方法对每次就诊时药物增加的可能性进行建模,然后根据每位患者接受的药物增加次数高于或低于预测次数为其打分。基于标准的方法与基于规范的方法类似,但只要血压未得到控制就预期会增加药物。我们比较了这些分数预测最终收缩压(SBP)的能力。“有/无”分数显示出矛盾的结果:任何治疗增加都与SBP比未增加时高4.6 mmHg相关(P<0.001)。基于规范的方法分数并非以线性方式预测SBP(P=0.18);进一步研究揭示了基于规范的方法分数与SBP之间呈U形关系。然而,基于标准的方法分数是SBP的强线性预测指标(每10次就诊每增加一次额外治疗,SBP降低2.1 mmHg,P<0.001)。同样,基于标准的方法预测了以SBP<140 mmHg衡量的二分法血压控制情况(优势比,1.30;P<0.001)。
我们的结果表明,基于标准的方法是高血压治疗强度的首选测量方法。