Association of Mobile-Enhanced Remote Patient Monitoring with Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients with Comorbidities: A Multicenter Pre–Post Evaluation

TL;DR

Using mobile technology to monitor blood pressure in hypertensive patients with comorbidities improved blood pressure control and treatment adherence in a large study in China.

Contribution

Demonstrates that mobile-enhanced remote patient monitoring significantly improves blood pressure control in a real-world clinical setting.

Findings

Blood pressure control improved from 62.4% to 90.1% during the RPM-supported care period.

Mean systolic blood pressure decreased from 140 mmHg to 116–118 mmHg over six months.

Medication adherence and treatment intensity increased alongside the RPM intervention.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Hypertension affects more than 27% of adults in China, and despite ongoing public health efforts, substantial gaps remain in awareness, treatment, and blood pressure control, particularly among older adults and patients with multiple comorbidities. Conventional clinic-based care often provides limited opportunity for frequent monitoring and timely treatment adjustment, which may contribute to persistent poor control in routine practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in blood pressure control and related clinical indicators during implementation of a mobile-enhanced remote patient monitoring (RPM)–supported care model among hypertensive patients with comorbidities, including patterns of medication adjustment, adherence, and selected cardiometabolic parameters. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, pre–post evaluation of a mobile-enhanced remote patient monitoring (RPM) program among 6874 adults with hypertension managed at six hospitals in Chongqing, China. Participants received usual care during the pre-RPM phase (April–September 2024; clinic blood pressure measured using an Omron HEM-7136 device), followed by an RPM-supported phase (October 2024–March 2025; home blood pressure measured twice daily using connected A666G monitors with automated transmission via WeChat, medication reminders, and clinician follow-up). Given the use of different devices and measurement settings, blood pressure comparisons may be influenced by device- and setting-related measurement differences. Monthly blood pressure averages were calculated from all available readings. Subgroup analyses explored patterns by sex, age, baseline BP category, and comorbidity status. Results: The cohort was 48.9% male with a mean age of 66.9 ± 13.7 years. During the RPM-supported care period, the proportion meeting the study’s blood pressure control threshold increased from 62.4% (pre-RPM) to 90.1%. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased from 140 mmHg at baseline to 116–118 mmHg at 6 months during the more frequent monitoring and active treatment adjustment period supported by RPM (p < 0.001), alongside modest reductions in fasting blood glucose and total cholesterol. These achieved SBP levels are below commonly recommended office targets for many older adults (typically <140 mmHg for ages 65–79, with individualized lower targets only if well tolerated; and less stringent targets for adults ≥80 years) and therefore warrant cautious interpretation and safety contextualization. Medication adherence improved, and antihypertensive regimen intensity increased during follow-up, suggesting that more frequent monitoring and active treatment adjustment contributed to the early blood pressure decline. Subgroup patterns were broadly similar across age and baseline BP categories; observed differences by sex and comorbidity groups were exploratory. Conclusions: In this large multicenter pre–post study, implementation of an RPM-supported hypertension care model was associated with substantial improvements in blood pressure control and concurrent intensification of guideline-concordant therapy. Given the absence of a concurrent control group, clinic-to-home measurement differences, and concurrent medication changes, findings should be interpreted as associations observed during an intensified monitoring and treatment period rather than definitive causal effects of RPM technology alone. Pragmatic randomized evaluations with standardized measurement protocols, longer follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted.

Figures