O'Brien, Emily

Background Reductions in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension were observed early in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The degree to which BP control may have returned to prepandemic levels is unknown. Methods Individuals aged 18 to 85 years with hypertension from 17 health systems participating in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network were identified using electronic health record data collected as part of routine care. BP control (percentage of patients whose most recent BP measurement was <140/<90 mm Hg) was estimated in a series of 12‐month rolling measurement periods from 2017 through 2022 (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018; … January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022). Differences in average BP control between 2022 (January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022) and 2019 (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) were estimated overall (adjusted for age, sex, and race and ethnicity) and by race and ethnicity (adjusted for age and sex). Results Our sample included 1 193 314 persons with hypertension in 2019 (48.9% aged 65–85 years, 52.9% men, 66.2% non‐Hispanic White) and 1 499 418 individuals in 2022 (50.6% aged 65–85 years, 47.1% men, 62.7% non‐Hispanic White). The weighted average BP control dropped from 65.3% in 2019 to 61.8% in 2020 and then partially recovered to 62.6% in 2022 (adjusted mean difference, −2.6 percentage points [95% CI, −5.0 to −0.2]). Non‐Hispanic Asian individuals experienced the largest temporal drop in BP control, declining from 68.4% in 2019 to 63.9% in 2022. Conclusions BP control was disrupted during the COVID‐19 pandemic and had not fully rebounded to prepandemic levels by the end of 2022. Continued surveillance is needed to determine whether the decline in BP control will persist and will result in future adverse cardiovascular events.

Abstract Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) play a vital role in addressing current population health problems, and their use of electronic health record (EHR) systems promises efficiencies that will increase the speed and volume of relevant and generalizable research. However, as the number of ePCTs using EHR-derived data grows, so does the risk that research will become more vulnerable to biases due to differences in data capture and access to care for different subsets of the population, thereby propagating inequities in health and the healthcare system. We identify 3 challenges—incomplete and variable capture of data on social determinants of health, lack of representation of vulnerable populations that do not access or receive treatment, and data loss due to variable use of technology—that exacerbate bias when working with EHR data and offer recommendations and examples of ways to actively mitigate bias.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic‐level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self‐Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic‐level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP‐related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference‐in‐differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety‐net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self‐Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between‐group differences‐in‐differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self‐Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, −3.2% to 5.6%], P =0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [−0.5% to 6.9%], P =0.09; Self‐Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [−0.4% to 4.5%], P =0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.