Telemonitoring and/or self monitoring in Hypertension (TASMINH4)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Telemonitoring and/or self monitoring in Hypertension (TASMINH4): A randomised controlled trial
IRAS ID
147638
Contact name
Richard McManus
Contact email
Eudract number
N/A
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
n/a, n/a
Research summary
The TASMINH4 trial is an RCT, with embedded qualitative and economic analyses, to determine whether management of hypertension based on self-monitored blood pressure (BP), with or without telemonitoring, results in better BP control compared to usual care, and additionally whether management of hypertension based on self-monitored BP with telemonitoring results in better BP control than self-monitoring alone.
TASMINH showed that self-monitoring in practice waiting rooms reduced BP in the short term (6m) but that this was not sustained at 12 months, whilst consultation rate was reduced and costs were no more than usual care. This showed that self-monitoring was feasible but greater integration into usual care was required, as approximately 50% of patients did not share BP data with their GPs despite a year of self monitoring and being explicitly asked to, whilst patients reported preferring home monitoring to practice based self-monitoring.
The TASMINH2 trial found that self-management of hypertension resulted in significantly lower (5.4mmHg) systolic BP after one year as compared to usual care. However, integration of self-management into daily practice is likely to be only relevant for a minority of individuals with hypertension hence the need for self-monitoring with GP-led management. In TASMINH2 telemetry was used to allow patients to transmit results to the research group as a safety feature. Telemetry is not currently widely available in the UK and the standards for transfer of electronic BP readings are not sufficiently widely adopted to allow such readings to be easily integrated into clinical record systems. Thus it remains to be seen if a self-monitoring system that avoided telemetry might be more cost-effective and easier to integrate into daily practice.
REC name
South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/SC/0218
Date of REC Opinion
25 Jun 2014
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion