Sinéad Tj McDonagh, Charlotte Reburn, Jane R Smith, Christopher E Clark
{"title":"高血压降压集体干预:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Sinéad Tj McDonagh, Charlotte Reburn, Jane R Smith, Christopher E Clark","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypertension is the leading modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease. Primary care management is predominantly individual and remains suboptimal. Interventions delivered to groups incorporate peer support and potentially offer efficient use of limited resources. Evidence for the benefits of group-delivered interventions in hypertension is unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether group-delivered hypertension interventions improve blood pressure (BP) outcomes compared to usual care (UC).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials in community, primary, or outpatient care settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 20 March 2024 for randomised controlled trials comparing group-delivered interventions to UC for adults with hypertension. Primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic BP, achievement of study BP targets and medication adherence; quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were pooled according to intervention type using random effects meta-analyses; predictors of BP lowering were modelled with meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 5326 citations were retrieved; 59 intervention groups (IGs) from 54 studies (13 976 participants) were included. Compared to UC, systolic BP reduced by 7.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7 to 9.6; 23 IGs) following exercise, 4.8 mmHg (95% CI = 3.2 to 6.4; 26 IGs) following lifestyle education, and 3.6 mmHg (95% CI = 0.3 to 6.9; seven IGs) following psychotherapeutic interventions. Corresponding reductions in diastolic BP were 3.9 mmHg (95% CI = 2.6 to 5.2; 21 IGs), 2.9 mmHg (95% CI = 1.8 to 3.9; 24 IGs), and 1.2 mmHg (95% CI = -1.9 to 4.3; seven IGs). Achievement of target BP and medication adherence were infrequently reported, with equivocal findings (relative risks 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.2, <i>P</i> = 0.02, 11 IGs and 1.0, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1, <i>P</i> = 0.60, seven IGs, respectively). In multivariable models, higher baseline BP and pre-existing cardiovascular morbidity were associated with greater BP reductions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Group-delivered interventions were effective at lowering BP for people with hypertension compared with UC; their feasibility and cost-effectiveness in primary care require further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e266-e276"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961176/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group-delivered interventions for lowering blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sinéad Tj McDonagh, Charlotte Reburn, Jane R Smith, Christopher E Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypertension is the leading modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease. Primary care management is predominantly individual and remains suboptimal. Interventions delivered to groups incorporate peer support and potentially offer efficient use of limited resources. Evidence for the benefits of group-delivered interventions in hypertension is unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether group-delivered hypertension interventions improve blood pressure (BP) outcomes compared to usual care (UC).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials in community, primary, or outpatient care settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 20 March 2024 for randomised controlled trials comparing group-delivered interventions to UC for adults with hypertension. Primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic BP, achievement of study BP targets and medication adherence; quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were pooled according to intervention type using random effects meta-analyses; predictors of BP lowering were modelled with meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 5326 citations were retrieved; 59 intervention groups (IGs) from 54 studies (13 976 participants) were included. Compared to UC, systolic BP reduced by 7.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7 to 9.6; 23 IGs) following exercise, 4.8 mmHg (95% CI = 3.2 to 6.4; 26 IGs) following lifestyle education, and 3.6 mmHg (95% CI = 0.3 to 6.9; seven IGs) following psychotherapeutic interventions. Corresponding reductions in diastolic BP were 3.9 mmHg (95% CI = 2.6 to 5.2; 21 IGs), 2.9 mmHg (95% CI = 1.8 to 3.9; 24 IGs), and 1.2 mmHg (95% CI = -1.9 to 4.3; seven IGs). Achievement of target BP and medication adherence were infrequently reported, with equivocal findings (relative risks 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.2, <i>P</i> = 0.02, 11 IGs and 1.0, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1, <i>P</i> = 0.60, seven IGs, respectively). In multivariable models, higher baseline BP and pre-existing cardiovascular morbidity were associated with greater BP reductions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Group-delivered interventions were effective at lowering BP for people with hypertension compared with UC; their feasibility and cost-effectiveness in primary care require further study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e266-e276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961176/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0585\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0585","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:高血压是心血管疾病的主要可改变原因。初级保健管理主要是个人的,仍然是次优的。向群体提供的干预措施包括同伴支持,并可能有效利用有限的资源。高血压群体干预的益处证据尚不清楚。目的:确定与常规护理(UC)相比,群体高血压干预是否能改善血压(BP)结局。设计和环境:对社区、初级或门诊医疗机构的随机对照试验进行系统评价、荟萃分析和荟萃回归。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane CENTRAL和CINAHL从成立到2024年3月20日的随机对照试验,比较组给予的干预措施对成年高血压患者UC的影响。主要结局是收缩压和舒张压的变化,达到研究目标的血压和药物依从性;使用Cochrane风险偏倚2工具评估质量。采用随机效应meta分析,按干预类型汇总数据;血压降低的预测因子采用meta回归建模。结果:共检索到5326篇引文;纳入54项研究的59个干预组(IGs)(13976名受试者)。与UC相比,收缩压降低了7.2 mmHg(95%可信区间[CI] = 4.7至9.6;23 ig),运动后4.8 mmHg (95% CI = 3.2 ~ 6.4;接受生活方式教育的26名IGs)和3.6 mmHg (95% CI = 0.3至6.9;7个ig),并进行心理治疗干预。舒张压相应降低3.9 mmHg (95% CI = 2.6 ~ 5.2;21 ig), 2.9 mmHg (95% CI = 1.8 ~ 3.9;24 ig)和1.2 mmHg (95% CI = -1.9 ~ 4.3;七个IGs)。达到目标血压和药物依从性的报道很少,结果模棱两可(相对危险度分别为1.1,95% CI = 1.0 ~ 1.2, P = 0.02, 11 ig和1.0,95% CI = 1.0 ~ 1.1, P = 0.60, 7 ig)。在多变量模型中,较高的基线血压和先前存在的心血管发病率与较大的血压降低相关。结论:与UC相比,群体干预对高血压患者降压有效;它们在初级保健中的可行性和成本效益有待进一步研究。
Group-delivered interventions for lowering blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Hypertension is the leading modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease. Primary care management is predominantly individual and remains suboptimal. Interventions delivered to groups incorporate peer support and potentially offer efficient use of limited resources. Evidence for the benefits of group-delivered interventions in hypertension is unclear.
Aim: To determine whether group-delivered hypertension interventions improve blood pressure (BP) outcomes compared to usual care (UC).
Design and setting: Systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials in community, primary, or outpatient care settings.
Method: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 20 March 2024 for randomised controlled trials comparing group-delivered interventions to UC for adults with hypertension. Primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic BP, achievement of study BP targets and medication adherence; quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were pooled according to intervention type using random effects meta-analyses; predictors of BP lowering were modelled with meta-regression.
Results: Overall, 5326 citations were retrieved; 59 intervention groups (IGs) from 54 studies (13 976 participants) were included. Compared to UC, systolic BP reduced by 7.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7 to 9.6; 23 IGs) following exercise, 4.8 mmHg (95% CI = 3.2 to 6.4; 26 IGs) following lifestyle education, and 3.6 mmHg (95% CI = 0.3 to 6.9; seven IGs) following psychotherapeutic interventions. Corresponding reductions in diastolic BP were 3.9 mmHg (95% CI = 2.6 to 5.2; 21 IGs), 2.9 mmHg (95% CI = 1.8 to 3.9; 24 IGs), and 1.2 mmHg (95% CI = -1.9 to 4.3; seven IGs). Achievement of target BP and medication adherence were infrequently reported, with equivocal findings (relative risks 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.2, P = 0.02, 11 IGs and 1.0, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1, P = 0.60, seven IGs, respectively). In multivariable models, higher baseline BP and pre-existing cardiovascular morbidity were associated with greater BP reductions.
Conclusion: Group-delivered interventions were effective at lowering BP for people with hypertension compared with UC; their feasibility and cost-effectiveness in primary care require further study.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.