PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Acharya, Sameer AU - Neupane, Gagan AU - Seals, Austin AU - Madhav, KC AU - Giustini, Dean AU - Sharma, Sharan AU - Taylor, Yhenneko J. AU - Palakshappa, Deepak AU - Williamson, Jeff D. AU - Moore, Justin B. AU - Bosworth, Hayden B. AU - Pokharel, Yashashwi TI - Heterogeneity of the Effect of Telemedicine Hypertension Management Approach on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of US-based Clinical Trials AID - 10.1101/2023.09.14.23295587 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.09.14.23295587 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/15/2023.09.14.23295587.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/15/2023.09.14.23295587.full AB - Background Telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) uses home blood pressure (BP) to guide pharmacotherapy and telemedicine-based self-management support (SMS). Optimal approach to implementing TM-HTN in the US is unknown.Methods We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to examine the effect of TM-HTN vs. usual clinic-based care on BP and assessed heterogeneity by patient- and clinician-related factors. We searched US-based randomized clinical trials among adults from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Compendex, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and two trial registries to 7/7/2023. Two authors extracted, and a third author confirmed data. We used trial-level differences in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP) and BP control rate at ≥6 months using random-effects models. We examined heterogeneity of effect in univariable meta-regression and in pre-specified subgroups [clinicians leading pharmacotherapy (physician vs. non-physician), SMS (pharmacist vs. nurse), White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (>50% patients/trial), diabetes predominant trials (≥25% patients/trial) and in trials that have majority of both non-White patients and patients with diabetes vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials.Results Thirteen, 11 and 7 trials were eligible for SBP, DBP and BP control, respectively. Differences in SBP, DBP and BP control rate were -7.3 mmHg (95% CI: - 9.4, -5.2), -2.7 mmHg (-4.0, -1.5) and 10.1% (0.4%, 19.9%), respectively, favoring TM-HTN. More BP reduction occurred in trials with non-physician vs. physician led pharmacotherapy (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.9/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), pharmacist vs. nurses provided SMS (9.3/4.1 mmHg vs. 5.6/1.0 mmHg, P=0.01 for SBP, P<0.01 for DBP), and White vs. non-White patient predominant trials (9.3/4.0 mmHg vs. 4.4/1.1 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP), with no difference by diabetes predominant trials. Lower BP reduction occurred in both diabetes and non-White patient predominant trials vs. White patient predominant but not diabetes predominant trials (4.5/0.9 mmHg vs. 9.5/4.2 mmHg, P<0.01 for both SBP/DBP).Conclusions TM-HTN is more effective than clinic-based care in the US, particularly when non-physician led pharmacotherapy and pharmacist provided SMS. Non-White patient predominant trials seemed to achieve lesser BP reduction. Equity conscious, locally informed adaptation of TM-HTN is needed before wider implementation.What Is New?In this systematic review and meta-analysis of US-based clinical trials, we found that telemedicine management of hypertension (TM-HTN) was more effective in reducing and controlling blood pressure (BP) compared with clinic based hypertension (HTN) care.The BP reduction was more evident when pharmacotherapy was led by non-physician compared with physicians and HTN self-management support was provided by clinical pharmacists compared with nurses,Non-White patient predominant trials achieved lesser BP reductions than White patient predominant trials.What Are the Clinical Implications?Before wider implementation of TM-HTN intervention in the US, locally informed adaptation, such as optimizing the team-based HTN care approach, can provide more effective BP control.Without equity focused tailoring, TM-HTN intervention implemented as such can exacerbate inequities in BP control among non-White patients in the US.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis is a meta analysis. Protocol of this meta analysis is found here https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NHMB4Clinical Protocols https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NHMB4 Funding StatementThere was no funding associated with this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NAI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll the relevant data will be available on request. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NHMB4 BPblood pressureDBPdiastolic blood pressureHTNhypertensionRoBrisk of biasSBPsystolic blood pressureSMBPself-measured blood pressureSMSself-management supportTM-HTNtelemedicine management of hypertension