OBJECTIVE: Hypertension affects more than 50 million people in the United States alone. Despite clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of quality treatment for high blood pressure, many millions of diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertensives are not receiving the optimal standard of care. The difference in patient outcomes achieved with present hypertension treatment methods and those thought to be possible using best practice treatment methods is known as a quality gap, and such gaps are at least partly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives each year. This review was organized to bring a systematic assessment of different quality improvement (QI) strategies and their effects to the process of identifying and managing hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY AND
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Investigators searched the MEDLINE® database, the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) registry, article bibliographies, and relevant journals for experimental evaluations of QI interventions aimed at improving hypertension screening and management of non-pregnant adults with primary hypertension. The reviewers included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series in which at least one reported outcome measure included changes in blood pressure, or provider or patient adherence to a recommended process of care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Relevant data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Each QI intervention was classified into one or more of the following components: provider education, provider reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information, patient education, promotion of self-management, patient reminders, audit and feedback, organizational change, or financial incentives. Certain categories were further subdivided into major subtypes (e.g., professional meetings for provider education and disease management for organizational change). The researchers also evaluated the impact of clinical information systems as a mediator for interventions of all types. They compared the different QI strategies in terms of the median effects achieved for blood pressure control and for a generalized measure of provider or patient adherence.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three articles reporting a total of 82 comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Studies of hypertension identification were found to be too heterogeneous for quantitative analysis. The majority of screening studies were clinic-based (with a few offered at work sites), and the most common strategies involved patient and/or provider reminders. These generally showed positive results; several studies found that patients were more likely to know their blood pressure or attend clinic visits after receiving reminders. Across all studies with a variety of strategies, the median reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were 4.5 mmHg (interquartile range: 1.5, 11.0) and 2.1 mmHg (interquartile range: -0.2, 5.0), respectively. The median increase in the proportion of patients in the target SBP range and target DBP range was 16.2 percent (interquartile range: 10.3, 32.2), and 6.0 percent (interquartile range: 1.5, 17.5), respectively. Studies that focused on improving provider adherence showed a range of median reduction of 1.3 percent to a median improvement of 3.3 percent across all QI strategies. Overall, patient adherence showed a median improvement of 2.8 percent (interquartile range: 1.9, 3.0).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this review suggest that QI strategies appear, in general, to be associated with the improved identification and control of hypertension. It is not possible to discern with complete confidence which specific QI strategies have the greatest effects, since most of the studies included more than one QI strategy. All of the assessed strategies may be beneficial under some circumstances, and in varying combinations. There may be other useful strategies that have not been studied in trials meeting the inclusion criteria for evidence-based review; it is not possible to draw conclusions about these strategies.

To allocate HIV prevention resources effectively, it is important to have information about the effectiveness of alternative prevention programs as a function of expenditure. We refer to this relationship as the ldquoproduction functionrdquo for a prevention program. Few studies of HIV prevention programs have reported this relationship. This paper demonstrates the value of such information. We present a simple model for allocating HIV prevention resources, and apply the model to an illustrative HIV prevention resource allocation problem. We show that, without sufficient information about prevention program production functions, suboptimal decisions may be made. We show that epidemiologic data, such as estimates of HIV prevalence or incidence, may not provide enough information to support optimal allocation of HIV prevention resources. Our results suggest that good allocations can be obtained based on fairly basic information about prevention program production functions: an estimate of fixed cost plus a single estimate of cost and resulting risk reduction. We find that knowledge of production functions is most important when fixed cost is high and/or when the budget is a significantly constraining factor. We suggest that, at the minimum, future data collection on prevention program effectiveness should include fixed and variable cost estimates for the intervention when implemented at a ldquotypicalrdquo level, along with a detailed description of the intervention and detailed description of costs by category.

Recent research has identified genetic traits that can be used in a laboratory setting to distinguish among global population groups. In some genetic analyses, the population groups identified resemble groups that are historically categorized as "races." On the basis of these associations, some researchers have argued that a patient's race can be used to predict underlying genetic traits and from these traits, the expected outcomes of treatment. Others have questioned the use of race in this way, arguing that racially defined groups are so heterogeneous that predictions of individual characteristics derived from group averages are bound to be problematic. Practitioners today face the dilemma of translating this scientific debate into clinical decisions made 1 patient at a time. Is it or is it not appropriate to use a patient's self-identified "race" to help decide treatment? In contrast to the global population groups identified by genetic studies, the U.S. population has experienced substantial genetic admixture over time, weakening our ability to distinguish groups on the basis of meaningful genetic differences. Nonetheless, many researchers have suggested that these differences are still sufficient to identify racially specific uses for pharmaceutical and other treatments. A review of recent research on the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure finds that race-specific treatments of this type carry a substantial risk for treating patients--black or white--inappropriately, either by withholding a treatment that may be effective or by using a treatment that may be ineffective. Only by moving beyond historical concepts of "race" to examining a patient's individual socioeconomic, cultural, behavioral, and ancestral circumstances can a practitioner select the treatment that is most likely to be effective and in doing so, can best serve that patient's needs.

OBJECTIVE: Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) is reportedly highly accurate for the diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome (CS). However, diagnostic thresholds for abnormal results are based on healthy, young populations and limited data are available on its use in elderly populations with chronic medical conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate LNSC levels in elderly male veterans with and without diabetes.

DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of LNSC levels in male veterans.

PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-four participants with type 2 diabetes and 52 participants without diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: Participants underwent outpatient LNSC (2300 h) testing. Participants with elevated LNSC (> or = 4.3 nmol/l) underwent secondary testing, including 24-h urine free cortisol (24UFC, > 60 microg/day) and dexamethasone suppression testing (DST, serum cortisol > 50 nmol/l). Participants with positive secondary testing had a morning ACTH level analysed and either pituitary or adrenal imaging performed.

RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one diabetics and 46 controls (mean age 61 years) returned samples (91% overall). Average LNSC levels (nmol/l) in diabetics were significantly higher than in nondiabetics [median (interquartile range): 2.6 (1.8-4.1) vs. 1.6 (1.0-2.0)] and in those aged > or = 60 compared to 60 [2.7 (2.0-4.3) vs. 1.9 (1.4-2.9)] (P 0.001 for both). Thirty-one participants required secondary testing. Seventy-nine per cent of participants who underwent secondary testing had normal 24UFC and DST. No cases of CS have been diagnosed to date. Increasing age [odds ratio (OR) 2.0 per decade], current diabetes mellitus (OR 4.4), and elevated blood pressure (OR 1.3 per 10 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure) were associated with abnormal LNSC results (P 0.05 for each).

CONCLUSIONS: LNSC has been shown to be sensitive and specific in diagnosing CS in certain high-risk populations, primarily the young and middle-aged. The development of age- and comorbidity-adjusted thresholds may be warranted for LNSC testing in elderly subjects and in those with significant comorbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an intervention focusing clinician attention on drug choice for hypertension treatment improves concordance between drug regimens and guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing an individualized intervention with a general guideline implementation in geographically diverse primary care clinics of a university-affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

METHODS: Participants were 36 attending physicians and nurse practitioners (16 in the general group and 20 in the individualized group), with findings based on 4500 hypertensive patients. A general guideline implementation for all clinicians, including education about guideline-based drug recommendations and goals for adequacy of blood pressure control, was compared with addition of a printed individualized advisory sent to clinicians at each patient visit, indicating whether or not the patient's antihypertensive drug regimen was guideline concordant. We measured change from baseline to end point in the proportion of clinicians' patients whose drug therapy was guideline concordant.

RESULTS: The individualized intervention resulted in an improvement in guideline concordance more than twice that observed for the general intervention (10.9% vs 3.8%, t = 2.796, P = .008). Bootstrap analysis showed that being in the individualized group increased the odds of concordance 1.5-fold (P = .025). The proportion of patients with adequate blood pressure control increased within each study group; however, the difference between groups was not significant.

CONCLUSION: An individualized advisory regarding drug therapy for hypertension given to the clinician at each patient visit was more effective in changing clinician prescribing behavior than implementation of a general guideline.

Dissatisfaction with the U.S. health care system is widespread, but no consensus has emerged as to how to reform it. The principal methods of finance -- employer-based insurance, means-tested insurance, and Medicare -- are deeply and irreparably flawed. Policymakers confront two fundamental questions: Should reform be incremental or comprehensive? And should priority be given to reforming the financing system or to improving organization and delivery? We consider here several proposals for incremental reform and three for comprehensive reform: individual mandates with subsidies, single payer, and universal vouchers. Over the long term, reform is likely to come in response to a major war, depression, or large-scale civil unrest.

This issue of CHP/PCOR's quarterly newsletter, which covers news from the summer 2005 quarter, includes articles about:

• our new core faculty member Grant Miller, a Harvard-trained health economist with an interest in improving health in developing countries;
• a discussion with center director Alan Garber on key issues and challenges facing the Medicare program;
• the fourth meeting of the Patient Safety Consortium, a group of more than 100 U.S. hospitals taking part in CHP/PCOR research on patient safety culture;
• core faculty member Jay Bhattacharya's research on HIV patients' perceptions of their lifespan as examined through viatical settlement transactions; and
• a research project on technology coverage decisions in the U.S. vs. the U.K., undertaken by Stirling Bryan, a U.K.-based Harkness Fellow in Health Care Policy who is spending the next academic year at CHP/PCOR.