Closing gaps in blood pressure control: a look at two major approaches
Sections
Open Access Perspective
Closing gaps in blood pressure control: a look at two major approaches

Affiliation:

Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology Division, Hypertension Section, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA

Email: Shawna.Nesbitt@utsouthwestern.edu

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6043-6541

Shawna D. Nesbitt
*

Explor Med. 2025;6:1001337 DOl: https://doi.org/10.37349/emed.2025.1001337

Received: February 16, 2025 Accepted: May 20, 2025 Published: June 23, 2025

Academic Editor: Carlos M. Ferrario, Wake Forest School of Medicine, USA

The article belongs to the special issue Drug Adherence in Hypertension

Abstract

Major gaps in hypertension control continue despite effective treatments. Among patients who are diagnosed and treated, adherence to therapy remains a barrier to achieving and maintaining control. Multiple modalities have demonstrated success in facilitating adherence. Using fixed dose combination therapy and home self blood pressure (BP) monitoring are 2 major approaches offering significant advantages to improve adherence, lower BP, and ultimately improve outcomes. While no single modality is universal for all patients, exploring the advantages and challenges of these modalities is a key strategy to identify the ideal approach to achieve better BP control.

Keywords

Hypertension, medication adherence, home blood pressure monitoring, self blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure control, fixed dose combination therapy

Introduction

Blood pressure (BP) continues to be a major challenge in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events with persistent issues in diagnosis, awareness, and control. Many approaches have been proposed to improve BP control, yet the success is limited. Finding the best approach requires assessing the primary barrier in achieving control and aligning the problem with the proper solution.

Globally hypertension accounts for 10.8 million deaths and in 2019, it was the leading risk factor for the burden of disease, except in Oceana and some areas of sub-Saharan Africa [1]. Using the American Heart Association definition of hypertension [> 130/80 mmHg (> 17/10 kPa)], the overall prevalence of hypertension in the U.S. is 46%, while in adults over 65 years of age, it is 76.5%, 58.6% in 45–64 years of age, and 28.5% in 20–44 years of age. Hypertension is undiagnosed in 38% of adults and only 25% of U.S. hypertensives are under control [1].

Nonadherence contributes significantly to the lack of BP control with an overall nonadherence rate of 37% in patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension. However, the method of data collection has a large effect on the reported rate. Whereas the prevalence of nonadherence was reported at 20% with indirect assessment using questionnaires and pill counts, when assessed by direct observation or therapeutic testing it was as high as 46% [2]. In a recent study assessing drug adherence by serum drug concentration in hypertensive Norwegian patients, poorer adherence was more common in younger patients, patients with higher pill burden and less combination therapy, and in individuals who were not of European descent [3].

The burden of uncontrolled hypertension is significant in human and financial costs [4]. Improving adherence to therapeutic recommendations can improve the lives of many and reduce CV outcomes. Multiple approaches to improve adherence to therapy have been studied with variable success rates. Here we explore 2 major approaches to improve adherence.

Fixed dose combination advantages

There is no doubt that simpler regimens yield better adherence. In this regard, combination therapy offers a true advantage to cost and pill burden for patients [5]. The evidence supporting the use of fixed dose combinations is strong. These options show higher persistence and significantly lower major CV events due to hypertension in large retrospective analyses. In a retrospective analysis of patients prescribed amlodipine/benazepril fixed dose combination compared to dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB)/angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor as separate medications, the medication possession ratio was 88% versus 69% respectively (P < 0.001) [6]. Simonyi et al. [7] found that in a retrospective observational study of 173,206 patients with hypertension in the Hungarian health system, on each option of fixed dose ramipril/amlodipine combinations compared to free equivalent versions of treatment at 24 months, in addition to improved drug persistence (82–85% vs. 58–73%, respectively), the composite major adverse CV events were significantly reduced with fixed dose pills for each dose strength (hazard ratio 0.68–0.7, P < 0.001).

Most fixed dose combinations consist of 2 drug agents, however, fewer 3 drug combinations exist. Recently an international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group 12-week trial comparing the triple combination of telmisartan/amlodipine/indapamide compared to 2 drug combinations of these agents demonstrated superior BP control with the triple combination with no difference in withdrawal rates due to adverse events [8]. Similarly, the same triple combination at low doses showed better BP control [goal < 140/90 mmHg (< 18/11 kPa)] compared to standard protocol in a study in Nigeria (82% vs. 72%, respectively) [9]. In addition to the simpler dosing, the synergistic effects of these agents improve their efficacy and utility. The rationale for combining thiazide diuretics and renin angiotensin blockade is based on the natriuresis and volume depletion caused by diuretics leading to activation of the renin angiotensin system (RAS) that is offset by the RAS blockers and further augmented by the vasodilation and sodium/volume reduction caused by RAS blockers leading to better BP control [10]. CCB and RAS blockers are another combination option that are both effective BP lowering agents with complementary mechanisms that target multiple mechanisms involved in vascular disease progression. CCBs not only cause vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium into vascular smooth muscle cells but also promote fibrinolysis, inhibit proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells, and inhibit apoptosis of endothelial cells. While RAS blockade triggers vasodilation through blocking the potent vasoconstrictor angiotensin II and a host of positive vascular effects including improving endothelial function as well as vascular inflammation [11]. In addition, combining RAS blockade with CCB appears to minimize the peripheral edema often seen with dihydropyridine CCB treatment [12, 13]. Together these well tolerated long-acting agents are highly effective for treating hypertension.

Barriers to fixed dose combination therapy

Fixed dose combination therapy is not without challenges (Table 1). One barrier to the use of combination therapy is the concordance of guideline recommendations. Major hypertension guidelines endorse the use of fixed dose combination therapy as a tactic to improve adherence, particularly in resistant hypertension, however, globally guidelines differ on the strength of the recommendation for fixed dose combination use and the level of BP of initiation of these agents [14]. A second barrier is prescriber reluctance. Several combination therapies are available, yet pharmacy records show that providers do not prescribe fixed dose meds as commonly as single dose meds despite the availability of the same dose strengths [15]. Motivating providers to prescribe fixed dose combination therapy when the proper dosing is available seems like a simpler approach to improve adherence. A recent survey of 191 physicians from 24 countries including 25% working in higher income countries, 38% working in middle income countries, and 6% working in lower income countries assessed opinions regarding factors associated with prescribing fixed dose combination antihypertensives revealed that the most frequently cited barrier in high- and low-income countries is cost and access to these agents. Furthermore, they placed the highest value on using fixed dose combinations in patients with high pill burdens and those who were nonadherent while slightly less on BPs not at goal or high CV risk [16]. A third barrier is cost. Although reducing 2 prescriptions to 1, may seem to logically reduce the cost for patients, this is often not the case. The cost of the fixed dose combination therapy may exceed the cost of 2 separate medications due to the structure of drug pricing and insurance coverage for patients. In a cost-effectiveness analysis in the U.S., the initial single pill antihypertensive options projected per patient medication cost were higher than traditional monotherapy options. However, over time this cost was offset by decreased physician visits, fewer CV events and medication related adverse events. Yet when generic single pill options were available, the initial cost difference favored single pill options [17, 18]. In an analysis of data from the SPRINT trial, 40% of patients in the intensive arm of the study [systolic BP goal was < 120 mmHg (< 15 kPa)] used single pill options, however, only 3.2% of all medication classes used are available as single pill options [19]. Thus availability of combination pill options may be a barrier as well.

 Fixed dose combination therapy advantages and challenges

AdvantagesChallenges
Decreased pill burden
Decreased co-pay/cost
Increased adherence
Decreased clinical inertia
Decreased blood pressure
Complementary mechanisms
Decreased CVD events
Availability of dose options
Availability of drug choice combinations
Access to fixed dose combinations
Cost (inconsistent coverage)
Inconsistent guideline recommendations for blood pressure goals and use
Prescriber reluctance

Fixed dose combination drugs for hypertension offer many advantages, although there are a few challenges to consider. CVD: cardiovascular disease

Self-monitoring approaches to improve adherence

Self-monitoring is widely integrated into guideline therapy for the diagnosis and management of hypertension [20]. Self-monitoring assists with identifying white coat hypertension or white coat effect, masked hypertension, resistant hypertension, and morning hypertension. Providers gain critical knowledge of the pattern of BP elevation and confirmation of the need for additional treatment through accurate home BP assessment. Most self BP assessment programs use traditional arm cuff devices. The addition of self-monitoring is cost effective and efficacious in facilitating medication adherence and better control rates. A 12-week study of hypertensive patients demonstrated an improvement in suboptimal adherence to therapy with the addition of home self BP measurement compared to usual care without home self BP (1.0% compared to 9.9%, P = 0.0005), likewise, BP control improved (66.7% vs. 55.1%, P = 0.04 respectively) [21]. A secondary benefit of home BP assessment is that of reducing clinical inertia by clinicians. Satoh et al. [22] reported that in the Ohasama study, patients reporting home self BP to their physicians were more likely to receive 3 or more classes of BP medications than usual care (41% versus 15% respectively) and achieved better BP control [93.6% versus 43% at the goal of < 135/85 mmHg (< 17/11 kPa)].

While arm cuff BPs are the standard, the use of wrist worn watch devices and other cuffless BP devices may improve adherence through facilitating self-monitoring [23, 24]. Cuffless BP devices are yet another option in out-of-office BP measurement. They range from wrist devices with smartphone applications to wearable ultrasound patches [25]. This technology is early in development in many respects, however, significant progress is being made. Although many of these devices are imperfect in their accuracy, they are useful for following trends. Nevertheless, some emerging devices have shown strong correlation to arterial line measurements [26]. The ease of use and portability of these devices makes them attractive to patients. Surprisingly, wearable devices may also be useful in addressing BP control. Although most wearable fitness devices do not assess BP, individuals who wear fitness devices have higher medication adherence compared to those who do not wear such devices [27]. Thus providing another motivation for greater adherence to medication. In addition, the act of wearing the device may serve as a reminder of their need for hypertension daily treatment.

While BP measurement alone offers clear benefits, the addition of coaching and health messages enhances the effectiveness of home self BP measurement. The widespread use of digital technology facilitates the ability to implement remote coaching. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of internet-based interventions of counseling and coaching alone show benefits on BP control, such as a recent trial showing a 4 mmHg (0.5 kPa) decline in clinic systolic BP at 12 months with e-counseling [28]. In the UK, a study of older hypertensive programs that included self-monitoring, dietary advice, dosing adjustments, and behavioral support demonstrated that the HOME and online BP program was more efficacious in achieving BP control compared to usual care (mean decline in BP in intervention group from 151.7/86.4 mmHg (20/11 kPa) to 138.4/80.2 mmHg (18/10 kPa), and in usual care group decline from 151.6/85.3 mmHg (20/11 kPa) to 141.8/79.8 mmHg (18/10 kPa) between intervention group and usual care group [29]). In a similar randomized study of 450 hypertensives, the addition of telephonic nurse management to home BP monitoring improved systolic BP control by 8.1 mmHg (1 kPa) compared to the home BP monitoring group [30]. The same approach is being studied in low- and middle-income countries, in the CONTRACO study using a self-monitoring approach with a treatment algorithm supported by nonphysician health workers in Spain, Colombia, Chile, and Dominican Republic [31]. Such interventions may facilitate better BP control in resource limited communities with less access to healthcare providers.

In addition, the use of smartphones that are integrated with electronic health records can augment adherence and improve control by providing reminders for medicine dosing, as well as making the patient aware of BP level reinforcing the need for medication [32, 33]. Integration of the data directly into the health record may also motivate a stronger relationship with care providers. Thereby promoting titration of doses at earlier intervals for more sustained control [34].

Tailoring messages to patients

The effectiveness of patient coaching and messaging is best when messaging is adapted to meet the needs of the patient population. Cultural fit, language, and health literacy are essential factors to consider in composing impactful messaging. In a study defining multilevel influences of barriers to BP control, hypertensive African Americans and their family members highlighted the importance of family support in disease management in achieving sustained behavior change [35]. Patterns of eating, exercise, and manners of daily living are clearly determined by the circle of influences on patients. Family and close friendships may affect the behavior of patients around adherence thus counseling messages to patients should consider these aspects of patients’ lives. Furthermore, patient engagement and health literacy impact adherence. Patients with low health literacy also have low adherence to hypertensive medical regimens and other chronic diseases [36, 37]. Thus, providing information that is customized to patients assuring that they understand the material is important. Other novel programs to augment home self BP monitoring programs have included mobilizing lay persons to facilitate patient engagement and knowledge. Trained community health workers, barbers, and health ambassadors are a few examples of successful methods to implement lay persons to enhance proper messaging and improve BP control [3842]. Community health workers may facilitate communication with communities with limited access to their providers due to distance or cost. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 studies of digital health interventions to improve hypertension in vulnerable patient populations found a statistically significant mean reduction in systolic BP of –4.3 mmHg (–0.5 kPa) (P = 0.04) at 12 months compared to usual care. Community health workers were included in 46% of these studies and cultural tailoring was included in 75% of them [43]. Among 6 randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of community health workers in managing hypertension compared to controls in low-income populations in the U.S., Brownstein et al. [44] reported differences of 4% to 46% in improvement in BP control over 6 to 24 months. Community health workers serve in many roles in these interventions including providing education, increasing access to social services, BP measurement, and mediators to healthcare providers [44]. More recently, community health workers have been shown to be effective components in hypertension management in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of hypertension is rising and access to care is low [45].

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) may offer additional benefits to improving adherence. AI techniques for data mining, outcome prediction, assessing BP variability through machine learning clustering, improving self-monitoring devices, as well as assessing adherence patterns and attitudes of patients are augmenting the field to facilitate better BP control [46]. The HOPE Asia Network proposes a practical personalized health record based on the home BP approach that uses time-series big data in digital health and digital medicine to predict the time and place of CV events, described as personalized anticipation medicine [47]. This approach may radically change the face of BP treatment and adherence.

Barriers to home self BP monitoring with supportive messaging

Out-of-office measurement with tailored messaging still faces some challenges with implementation (Table 2). Barriers such as cost of devices and wireless service, ideal messaging that is tailored to patients, and provider workforce time management to handle frequent communication from patients must be considered. While the cost of BP monitors has become more affordable for many, this is not universal. Insurance providers do not universally cover this device. In a survey of hypertensives, 58% responded they had home devices and used them, while of the 23% who did not own a device, 18% reported they could not afford one [48]. Providing free BP cuffs to low-income patients improves BP adherence and control [49]. The observation that wearable devices may affect adherence despite not assessing BP warrants consideration of the cost of these devices. Wearable devices are not cheap, and wide use comes with a cost, however, the return on investment for the escalating risk of uncontrolled hypertension and the human cost makes them more attractive [50, 51]. In the All of Us study of federally qualified health centers, patients with low incomes were less likely to own such devices than patients with higher incomes but they reported that they would wear a fitness device if they were available to them [52].

 Self blood pressure monitoring with messaging advantages and challenges

AdvantagesChallenges
Facilitates proper diagnosis & management
Cost effective
Increased adherence
Increased awareness
Decreases clinical inertia
Decreases blood pressure
Facilitates communication with clinician
Increases health literacy
Decreases CVD events
Community health workers offer additional access to support
Proper technique of measurement
Calibration of devices
Cost of devices
Access to wireless network services
Access to smartphones
Comfort with using technology

Self blood pressure monitoring with messaging offers multiple advantages in the course of treating hypertension, however, some challenges exist to implementation. CVD: cardiovascular disease

Proper use of home devices requires education, and calibration to assure accuracy. Patients can be instructed by staff during clinic visits, however, this requires additional time. Fortunately, many home BP device brands have been validated by international standards and the ratings are freely available at: http://dableducational.org. As more medical clinics are adopting electronic medical records, a larger percentage of patients have become familiar with the use of the portals for enhanced communication with health system providers.

Addressing adherence and the barriers to better BP control requires a thoughtful approach to the unique circumstances of patients. Clinicians should assess the barriers faced by patients to determine the most efficient use of methods to overcome them (Figure 1).

Approach to addressing adherence and barriers to blood pressure control. Selecting an approach for a patient to increase adherence and improve blood pressure should include a stepwise approach to thoughtfully select the best method to achieve success

Conclusions

Closing the gap in hypertension control requires addressing the barriers in a comprehensive manner. A systematic review of barriers to medication adherence in elderly patients identified 80 factors that fit into 5 categories, patient, physician, medication, system based, and other factors [53]. Although this approach was targeted towards elderly patients, it is generalizable to other patient groups. Multifaceted strategies that include fixed dose combination medications, home BP assessment programs with supportive communications are likely to improve not only adherence but most importantly, reduce CV events. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the advantages and challenges of 2 major approaches to reduce nonadherence and enhance BP control. The addition of out-of-office monitoring with patient messaging, particularly with community health workers in low-income populations, will facilitate greater awareness of the lack of BP control, and maintain stronger relationships with health care providers and resources which may help to overcome clinical inertia from providers. Greater access and use of fixed dose combination therapies lead to reduced pill burden and cost for patients, and the complementary mechanisms of fixed dose combination agents enhance effectiveness and mitigate side effects. These 2 approaches are not competitive but rather complement each other to increase adherence and facilitate success in closing the gap in BP control. Clinicians should prioritize the use of these methods, while researchers should concentrate on validating new techniques such as cuffless devices and AI tools for broader application.

Abbreviations

AI: artificial intelligence

BP: blood pressure

CCB: calcium channel blocker

CV: cardiovascular

RAS: renin angiotensin system

Declarations

Author contributions

SDN: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing.

Conflicts of interest

I serve as a site co-principal investigator on a study of renal denervation sponsored by Ablative Solutions.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2025.

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Martin SS, Aday AW, Allen NB, Almarzooq ZI, Anderson CAM, Arora P, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Committee. 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2025;151:e41660. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bourque G, Ilin JV, Ruzicka M, Hundemer GL, Shorr R, Hiremath S. Nonadherence Is Common in Patients With Apparent Resistant Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2023;36:394403. [DOI] [PubMed]
Olsen E, Halvorsen LV, Rognstad S, Aune A, Brobak KM, Bergland OU, et al. Characteristics of adherent and non-adherent patients with hypertension in a Norwegian cross-sectional study. Explor Med. 2025;6:1001279. [DOI]
Mancia G, Cappuccio FP, Burnier M, Coca A, Persu A, Borghi C, et al. Perspectives on improving blood pressure control to reduce the clinical and economic burden of hypertension. J Intern Med. 2023;294:25168. [DOI] [PubMed]
Kjeldsen SE, Narkiewicz K, Burnier M, Oparil S. Better drug adherence improves blood pressure control and lowers cardiovascular disease outcomes – from single pill combinations to monitoring of a nationwide health insurance database. Blood Press. 2021;30:1434. [DOI] [PubMed]
Choudhry NK, Kronish IM, Vongpatanasin W, Ferdinand KC, Pavlik VN, Egan BM, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Hypertension; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology. Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Control: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2022;79:e114. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Simonyi G, Burnier M, Narkiewicz K, Rokszin G, Abonyi-Tóth Z, Kovács G, et al. Effect of single-pill versus free equivalent combinations on persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events in hypertension: a real-world analysis. J Hypertens. 2025;43:40512. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Rodgers A, Salam A, Schutte AE, Cushman WC, de Silva HA, Di Tanna GL, et al.; GMRx2 Investigators. Efficacy and safety of a novel low-dose triple single-pill combination of telmisartan, amlodipine and indapamide, compared with dual combinations for treatment of hypertension: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, international clinical trial. Lancet. 2024;404:153646. [DOI] [PubMed]
Ojji DB, Salam A, Sani MU, Ogah OS, Schutte AE, Huffman MD, et al. Low-Dose Triple-Pill vs Standard-Care Protocols for Hypertension Treatment in Nigeria: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024;332:10709. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Nash DT. Rationale for combination therapy in hypertension management: focus on angiotensin receptor blockers and thiazide diuretics. South Med J. 2007;100:38692. [DOI] [PubMed]
Weir MR. Targeting mechanisms of hypertensive vascular disease with dual calcium channel and renin-angiotensin system blockade. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21:7709. [DOI] [PubMed]
Philipp T, Smith TR, Glazer R, Wernsing M, Yen J, Jin J, et al. Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther. 2007;29:56380. [DOI] [PubMed]
Pimenta E, Oparil S. Fixed combinations in the management of hypertension: patient perspectives and rationale for development and utility of the olmesartan-amlodipine combination. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008;4:65364. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Molina de Salazar DI, Coca A, Alcocer L, Piskorz D. The Rationale for Using Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy in the Management of Hypertension in Colombia: A Narrative Review. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2024;24:197209. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Wang B, Choudhry NK, Gagne JJ, Landon J, Kesselheim AS. Availability and utilization of cardiovascular fixed-dose combination drugs in the United States. Am Heart J. 2015;169:37986.e1. [DOI] [PubMed]
O’Hagan E, McIntyre D, Nguyen T, Tan KM, Hanlon P, Siddiqui M, et al. A Cross-Sectional Survey of Fixed-Dose Combination Antihypertensive Medicine Prescribing in Twenty-Four Countries, Including Qualitative Insights. Glob Heart. 2024;19:73. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Bryan AS, Moran AE, Mobley CM, Derington CG, Rodgers A, Zhang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial treatment with single-pill combination antihypertensive medications. J Hum Hypertens. 2023;37:98592. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Morabito G, Gregorio C, Ieva F, Barbati G, Mancia G, Corrao G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of single-pill and separate-pill administration of antihypertensive triple combination therapy: a population-based microsimulation study. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:1808. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
King JB, Derington CG, Herrick JS, Jacobs JA, Zheutlin AR, Conroy MB, et al. Single-Pill Combination Product Availability of the Antihypertensive Regimens Used for Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. Hypertension. 2023;80:174958. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Shimbo D, Artinian NT, Basile JN, Krakoff LR, Margolis KL, Rakotz MK, et al.; American Heart Association and the American Medical Association. Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home: A Joint Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Medical Association. Circulation. 2020;142:e4263. [DOI] [PubMed]
Zhang D, Huang QF, Li Y, Wang JG. A randomized controlled trial on home blood pressure monitoring and quality of care in stage 2 and 3 hypertension. Hypertens Res. 2021;44:53340. [DOI] [PubMed]
Satoh M, Metoki H, Murakami T, Tatsumi Y, Asayama K, Kikuya M, et al. Home blood pressure control and prescribing patterns of anti-hypertensive medications in a home blood pressure-based hypertension-specialized clinic in Japan: a sub-analysis of the Ohasama study. Hypertens Res. 2025;48:2636. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Mukkamala R, Shroff SG, Landry C, Kyriakoulis KG, Avolio AP, Stergiou GS. The Microsoft Research Aurora Project: Important Findings on Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement. Hypertension. 2023;80:53440. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Schutte AE. Wearable cuffless blood pressure tracking: when will they be good enough? J Hum Hypertens. 2024;38:66972. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Schutte AE. The promise and pitfalls of novel cuffless blood pressure devices. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:42223. [DOI] [PubMed]
Sayer G, Piper G, Vorovich E, Raikhelkar J, Kim GH, Rodgers D, et al. Continuous Monitoring of Blood Pressure Using a Wrist-Worn Cuffless Device. Am J Hypertens. 2022;35:40713. [DOI] [PubMed]
Quisel T, Foschini L, Zbikowski SM, Juusola JL. The Association Between Medication Adherence for Chronic Conditions and Digital Health Activity Tracking: Retrospective Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e11486. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Nolan RP, Feldman R, Dawes M, Kaczorowski J, Lynn H, Barr SI, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of E-Counseling for Hypertension: REACH. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11:e004420. [DOI] [PubMed]
McManus RJ, Little P, Stuart B, Morton K, Raftery J, Kelly J, et al.; HOME BP investigators. Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2021;372:m4858. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Ogedegbe G, Teresi JA, Williams SK, Ogunlade A, Izeogu C, Eimicke JP, et al. Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Nurse Case Management in Black and Hispanic Patients With Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024;332:4150. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Lora Mantilla AJ, Parra Gomez LA, Camacho-López PA, Otero-Wandurraga J, Novella B, González-Medina A, et al. Community-based model for management and follow-up by non-physician healthcare workers to improve awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension: The COTRACO study protocol. Heliyon. 2025;11:e41726. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Sim I. Mobile Devices and Health. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:95668. [DOI] [PubMed]
Kaihara T, Intan-Goey V, Scherrenberg M, Falter M, Kario K, Akashi Y, et al. Automatic transmission of home blood pressure data can be effective in managing hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2022;3:63853. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Bradley CK, Shimbo D, Colburn DA, Pugliese DN, Padwal R, Sia SK, et al. Cuffless Blood Pressure Devices. Am J Hypertens. 2022;35:3807. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Woods SB, Udezi V, Roberson PNE, Arnold EM, Nesbitt S, Hiefner A. “A cuff is not enough”: A community-based participatory research approach to soliciting perspectives of African Americans with hypertension and their family members on self-management intervention features. Fam Process. 2024;63:73148. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Xie Z, Liu K, Or C, Chen J, Yan M, Wang H. An examination of the socio-demographic correlates of patient adherence to self-management behaviors and the mediating roles of health attitudes and self-efficacy among patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes and hypertension. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1227. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Huang YM, Shiyanbola OO, Chan HY, Smith PD. Patient factors associated with diabetes medication adherence at different health literacy levels: a cross-sectional study at a family medicine clinic. Postgrad Med. 2020;132:32836. [DOI] [PubMed]
Heredia NI, Garza ER, Velasco-Huerta F, Swoboda TL, Fwelo P, Mathews PD, et al. Implementation of healthy heart ambassador to improve blood pressure control at community health centers in Texas. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24:1105. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Grant B, Myers K, Patterson H, Suthar I, Garst K, James M, et al. Virtual Expansion of the YMCA’s Blood Pressure Self-Monitoring (BPSM) Program: Using Telehealth to Adapt an Evidence-Based Program to Reach Rural Communities in South Carolina. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2024;30:S8995. [DOI] [PubMed]
Ravenell J, Green T, Arabadjian M, Schoenthaler A, Ogedegbe O. Barbershop-Facilitated Community-to-Clinic Linkage Implementation Program: Rationale and Protocol for a Novel Program to Prevent Hypertension Among Black Men. Am J Hypertens. 2023;36:2407. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Victor RG, Ravenell JE, Freeman A, Leonard D, Bhat DG, Shafiq M, et al. Effectiveness of a barber-based intervention for improving hypertension control in black men: the BARBER-1 study: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:34250. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Inagaki Y, Matsushita K, Appel LJ, Perry HB, Neupane D. Task-sharing with community health workers to treat hypertension: a scoping review. J Hypertens. 2024;42:204154. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Katz ME, Mszar R, Grimshaw AA, Gunderson CG, Onuma OK, Lu Y, et al. Digital Health Interventions for Hypertension Management in US Populations Experiencing Health Disparities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7:e2356070. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Brownstein JN, Chowdhury FM, Norris SL, Horsley T, Jack L Jr, Zhang X, et al. Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of people with hypertension. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:43547. [DOI] [PubMed]
Schutte AE, Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy N, Mohan S, Prabhakaran D. Hypertension in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Circ Res. 2021;128:80826. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Tsoi K, Yiu K, Lee H, Cheng HM, Wang TD, Tay JC, et al.; HOPE Asia Network. Applications of artificial intelligence for hypertension management. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2021;23:56874. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Kario K, Tomitani N, Wang TD, Park S, Li Y, Shin J, et al. Home blood pressure-centered approach – from digital health to medical practice: HOPE Asia Network consensus statement 2023. Hypertens Res. 2023;46:256174. [DOI] [PubMed]
Springer MV, Malani P, Solway E, Kirch M, Singer DC, Kullgren JT, et al. Prevalence and Frequency of Self-measured Blood Pressure Monitoring in US Adults Aged 50-80 Years. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2231772. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Sarkar A, Nwokocha C, Nash SG, Grigoryan L. Empowering Low-Income Patients with Home Blood Pressure Monitors to Improve Hypertension Control. J Am Board Fam Med. 2024;37:18795. [DOI] [PubMed]
Arrieta A, Woods JR, Qiao N, Jay SJ. Cost-benefit analysis of home blood pressure monitoring in hypertension diagnosis and treatment: an insurer perspective. Hypertension. 2014;64:8916. [DOI] [PubMed]
Arrieta A, Woods J, Wozniak G, Tsipas S, Rakotz M, Jay S. Return on investment of self-measured blood pressure is associated with its use in preventing false diagnoses, not monitoring hypertension. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0252701. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Holko M, Litwin TR, Munoz F, Theisz KI, Salgin L, Jenks NP, et al. Wearable fitness tracker use in federally qualified health center patients: strategies to improve the health of all of us using digital health devices. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5:53. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Yap AF, Thirumoorthy T, Kwan YH. Systematic review of the barriers affecting medication adherence in older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16:1093101. [DOI] [PubMed]
Cite this Article
Export Citation
Nesbitt SD. Closing gaps in blood pressure control: a look at two major approaches. Explor Med. 2025;6:1001337. https://doi.org/10.37349/emed.2025.1001337
Article Metrics

View: 56

Download: 3

Times Cited: 0