Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes—change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months—were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (−3.2 mmHg, [95% CI −4.9, −1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (−1.0 mmHg [−3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (−9.0, −3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic −0.2 mmHg [−2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [−0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies. Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care. This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366. 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups. Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care. National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Elevated blood pressure is the leading risk factor for global disease burden.¹Data from national and international surveys suggest that despite improvements over the last decade, significant proportions of patients have poor control of their elevated blood pressure.^2-5 Using the revised Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) 2014 blood pressure guideline,⁶ which proposed less restrictive targets for adults aged 60 years or older and for those with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, the proportion of adults in the United States with treatment-eligible hypertension who met blood pressure goals was less than half for younger adults (improved from 41.2% under JNC 7 to 47.5% under JNC 8 criteria) and less than two-thirds for older adults (although improved from 40% under JNC 7 to 65.8% under JNC 8).⁷ Most management of hypertension is undertaken in primary care, where it comprises the most common long-term condition seen by family physicians, so it is appropriate that interventions are delivered in this setting.⁸ Self-monitoring is now common, with approximately a third of patients with hypertension using it in the United Kingdom and more internationally.^9,10 Trials investigating self-monitoring have shown promise in the reduction of blood pressure particularly when combined with other interventions.¹¹

Objective The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. Design Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. Setting 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. Participants 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. Interventions Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. Results After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of −3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −6.1 to −0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of −0.5 mm Hg (−1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. Conclusions The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. Trial registration ISRCTN13790648.

Objective: To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020. Review methods: Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy. Data synthesis: A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E _max model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin. Results: 62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E _max dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive. Conclusions: For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020169955.