Departments of Medicine (L.A.C., J.A.M., K.A.C., K.B.D., R.T.B., D.C.C., C.R.D.H., C.A.I., E.R.M., N.-Y.W., D.B., A.A.S., H.-C.Y.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD (L.A.C., J.A.M., K.A.C., K.B.D., C.A., D.C.C., C.R.D.H., C.A.I., L.L., E.R.M., D.B., D.H., M.S., A.A.S., H.-C.Y.).
Circulation. 2024 Jul 16;150(3):230-242. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069622. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
Disparities in hypertension control are well documented but underaddressed.
RICH LIFE (Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone) was a 2-arm, cluster randomized trial comparing the effect on blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP ≤140 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≤90 mm Hg), patient activation, and disparities in BP control of 2 multilevel interventions, standard of care plus (SCP) and collaborative care/stepped care (CC/SC). SCP included BP measurement standardization, audit and feedback, and equity-leadership training. CC/SC added roles to address social or medical needs. Primary outcomes were BP control and patient activation at 12 months. Generalized estimating equations and mixed-effects regression models with fixed effects of time, intervention, and their interaction compared change in outcomes at 12 months from baseline.
A total of 1820 adults with uncontrolled BP and ≥1 other risk factors enrolled in the study. Their mean age was 60.3 years, and baseline BP was 152.3/85.5 mm Hg; 59.4% were women; 57.4% were Black, 33.2% were White, and 9.4% were Hispanic; 74% had hyperlipidemia; and 45.1% had type 2 diabetes. CC/SC did not improve BP control rates more than SCP. Both groups achieved statistically and clinically significant BP control rates at 12 months (CC/SC: 57.3% [95% CI, 52.7%-62.0%]; SCP: 56.7% [95% CI, 51.9%-61.5%]). Pairwise comparisons between racial and ethnic groups showed overall no significant differences in BP control at 12 months. Patients with coronary heart disease showed greater achievement of BP control in CC/SC than in SCP (64.0% [95% CI, 54.1%-73.9%] versus 50.8% [95% CI, 42.6%-59.0%]; =0.04), as did patients in rural areas (67.3% [95% CI, 49.8%-84.8%] versus 47.8% [95% CI, 32.4%-63.2%]; =0.01). Individuals in both arms experienced statistically and clinically significant reductions in mean systolic BP (CC/SC: -13.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -15.2 to -12.5]; SCP: -14.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -15.9 to -13.2]) and diastolic BP (CC/SC: -6.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -7.8 to -6.1]; SCP: -5.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.4 to -4.6]) over time. The difference in diastolic BP reduction between CC/SC and SCP over time was statistically significant (-1.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.2). Patient activation did not differ between arms. CC/SC showed greater improvements in patient ratings of chronic illness care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score) over 12 months (0.12 [95% CI, 0.02-0.22]).
Adding a collaborative care team to enhanced standard of care did not improve BP control but did improve patient ratings of chronic illness care.
高血压控制方面的差异有充分的记录,但未得到充分解决。
RICH LIFE(通过改善生活方式来减少高血压护理中的不平等:每个人的高血压护理改善)是一项 2 臂、聚类随机试验,比较了两种多层次干预措施(标准护理加(SCP)和协作护理/阶梯护理(CC/SC)对血压控制(收缩压≤140mmHg,舒张压≤90mmHg)、患者激活和血压控制差异的影响。SCP 包括血压测量标准化、审核和反馈以及公平领导力培训。CC/SC 增加了解决社会或医疗需求的角色。主要结局是 12 个月时的血压控制和患者激活。使用时间、干预和它们的交互作用的固定效应的广义估计方程和混合效应回归模型比较了从基线到 12 个月时的结果变化。
共有 1820 名血压控制不佳且有≥1 种其他危险因素的成年人参加了这项研究。他们的平均年龄为 60.3 岁,基线血压为 152.3/85.5mmHg;59.4%为女性;57.4%为黑人,33.2%为白人,9.4%为西班牙裔;74%有血脂异常;45.1%有 2 型糖尿病。CC/SC 并没有比 SCP 更能提高血压控制率。两组在 12 个月时均达到了统计学和临床显著的血压控制率(CC/SC:57.3%[95%置信区间,52.7%-62.0%];SCP:56.7%[95%置信区间,51.9%-61.5%])。在 12 个月时,对种族和族裔群体进行的两两比较显示,血压控制总体上没有显著差异。与 SCP 相比,冠心病患者在 CC/SC 中实现了更高的血压控制(64.0%[95%置信区间,54.1%-73.9%]与 50.8%[95%置信区间,42.6%-59.0%];=0.04),农村地区的患者也是如此(67.3%[95%置信区间,49.8%-84.8%]与 47.8%[95%置信区间,32.4%-63.2%];=0.01)。两个组的个体在收缩压(CC/SC:-13.8mmHg[95%置信区间,-15.2 至-12.5];SCP:-14.6mmHg[95%置信区间,-15.9 至-13.2])和舒张压(CC/SC:-6.9mmHg[95%置信区间,-7.8 至-6.1];SCP:-5.5mmHg[95%置信区间,-6.4 至-4.6])方面都经历了统计学和临床显著的降低。CC/SC 和 SCP 之间舒张压降低的差异在统计学上是显著的(-1.4mmHg[95%置信区间,-2.6 至-0.2])。两组患者的激活情况没有差异。CC/SC 在 12 个月时在慢性病护理(慢性病患者评估护理评分)方面的改善更为明显(0.12[95%置信区间,0.02-0.22])。
在强化标准护理的基础上增加协作护理团队并没有改善血压控制,但改善了患者对慢性病护理的评价。