Abstract Body: Background
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) combines home blood pressure (BP) measurements with asynchronous clinical review. Many programs layer Chronic Care Management (CCM), a structured program of monthly care coordination and telephonic outreach, to augment clinical oversight. The benefit of dual RPM+CCM enrollment on blood pressure outcomes remains under-characterized in large real-world populations. Additionally, analyzing the RPM and CCM together is a novel approach not yet studied in real-world data. Our objective was to compare systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) changes, engagement, and clinical response rates between patients enrolled in RPM alone versus those enrolled in both RPM+CCM (dual), when controlling for differences in program duration.
Hypothesis
We hypothesize that adults dually enrolled in RPM+CCM will experience greater reductions in SBP and DBP, higher Transmission Index engagement and a higher proportion achieving a ≥10 mmHg SBP drop compared with those managed with RPM alone, independent of differences in program duration.
Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of adults with baseline SBP ≥ 130 mmHg or DBP ≥ 80 who were enrolled ≥ 90 days in HealthSnap’s RPM program between 2021-2024. BP reported is the average of the first seven or last seven readings for an individual. Engagement was quantified by the Transmission Index (TI = % program days with ≥1 BP data transmission). Clinical response was defined as SBP reduction ≤ -10 mmHg. Continuous outcomes were compared by two-sample t-tests; proportions by χ² tests; p < 0.05 considered significant.
Results
Cohorts were RPM only (n = 26,455) and Dual enrolled (n = 9,268). Dual enrolled patients achieved significantly greater SBP and DBP reductions (-10.3 vs -9.0 mmHg and -6.5 vs -5.6 mmHg, respectively), higher engagement (TI 63.9% vs 51.5%), and a higher rate of clinical response (48.7% vs 44.3%). The 4.4 % absolute increase in clinical response corresponds to a number-needed-to-treat of 23. For every 23 patients dual-enrolled in CCM, there is one additional patient who achieves the clinically meaningful ≥10 mmHg SBP reduction.
Conclusions
Dual RPM+CCM enrollment over a longer monitoring period yields significantly greater reductions in SBP (-10.3 vs -9.1 mmHg) and DBP (-6.5 vs -5.6 mmHg), higher engagement, and more patients achieving ≥10 mmHg SBP drop. These findings support dual care models for hypertension management in real-world practice.