Plasma Parathyroid Hormone Is Independently Related to Nocturnal Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients: The Styrian Hypertension Study

High parathyroid hormone (PTH) has been linked with high blood pressure (BP), but the relationship with 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is largely unknown. The authors therefore analyzed cross‐sectional data of 292 hypertensive patients participating in the Styrian Hypertension Study (mean age, 61±11 years; 53% women). Median plasma PTH (interquartile range) determined after an overnight fast was 49 pg/mL (39–61), mean daytime BP was 131/80±12/9 mm Hg, and mean nocturnal BP was 115/67±14/9 mm Hg. In multivariate regression analyses adjusted for BP and PTH‐modifying parameters, PTH was significantly related to nocturnal systolic and diastolic BP (adjusted β‐coefficient 0.140 [P=.03] and 0.175 [P<.01], respectively). PTH was not correlated with daytime BP readings. These data suggest a direct interrelationship between PTH and nocturnal BP regulation. Whether lowering high PTH concentrations reduces the burden of high nocturnal BP remains to be shown in future studies.     

A Hypertensive Response to Exercise Is Prominent in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Hypertension: A Controlled Study

Blood pressure (BP) behavior during exercise is not clear in hypertensive patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The authors studied 57 men with newly diagnosed essential hypertension and untreated OSA (apnea‐hypopnea index [AHI] ≥5) but without daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≤10), and an equal number of hypertensive controls without OSA matched for age, body mass index, and office systolic BP. All patients underwent ambulatory BP measurements, transthoracic echocardiography, and exercise treadmill testing according to the Bruce protocol. A hypertensive response to exercise (HRE) was defined as peak systolic BP ≥210 mm Hg. Patients with OSA and control patients had similar ambulatory and resting BP, ejection fraction, and left ventricular mass. Peak systolic BP was significantly higher in patients with OSA (197.6±25.6 mm Hg vs 187.8±23.6 mm Hg; P=.03), while peak diastolic BP and heart rate did not differ between groups. Furthermore, an HRE was more prevalent in patients with OSA (44% vs 19%; P=.009). Multiple logistic regression revealed that an HRE is independently predicted by both the logAHI and minimum oxygen saturation during sleep (odds ratio, 3.94; confidence interval, 1.69–9.18; P=.001 and odds ratio, 0.94; confidence interval, 0.89–0.99; P=.02, respectively). Exaggerated BP response is more prevalent in nonsleepy hypertensives with OSA compared with their nonapneic counterparts. This finding may have distinct diagnostic and prognostic implications.     

Benefits and Risks of Aliskiren Treatment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Analyses of the 3A Registry

The authors sought to retrospectively analyze the real‐world evidence on aliskiren in diabetic patients with or without concomitant renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) blocker use based on the Registry for Ambulant Therapy With RAS Inhibitors in Hypertension Patients in Germany (3A). Of 14,986 patients included, 3772 patients had diabetes and 28.5% received aliskiren, 14.3% received angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 35.4% received aliskiren plus an ACE inhibitor/ARB, and 10.5% received other drugs. Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (baseline BP 148±15.8/84.0±10.9 mm Hg) revealed stronger diastolic BP reduction for aliskiren plus ACE inhibitor/ARB than aliskiren alone in the low (2.8±0.5 vs 0.6±0.6; P=.004) and intermediate (5.9±0.5 vs 4.5±0.5; P=.04) baseline BP groups. There was a lesser ambulatory BP reduction observed for patients receiving non‐RAS in the high baseline category for both systolic (12.5±1.8 vs 17.1±1.0; P=.02) and diastolic (6.9±1.0 vs 9.8±0.6; P=.01) BP. In patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes, aliskiren was beneficial in lowering BP, with no observed increases in major adverse effects compared with RAS‐blocking therapy alone.     

Effect of Allopurinol on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013; 15:435–442 ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Allopurinol is a potent xanthine oxidase inhibitor that is used in hyperuricemic patients to prevent gout. It has also been shown to decrease cardiovascular complications in a myriad of cardiovascular conditions. However, studies have reported conflicting evidence on its effects on blood pressure (BP). A systematic review was conducted using Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all the longitudinal studies that assessed the efficacy of allopurinol on systolic and diastolic BP. A total of 10 clinical studies with 738 participants were included in the analysis. Compared with the control group, systolic BP decreased by 3.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–5.3 mm Hg; P=.001) and diastolic BP decreased by 1.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.1–2.5 mm Hg; P=.03) in patients treated with allopurinol. When analysis was restricted to the higher‐quality randomized controlled trials, similar changes in systolic and diastolic BPs were found: 3.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.8–5.8 mm Hg; P<.001) and 1.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.1–2.7 mm Hg; P=.04), respectively. Allopurinol is associated with a small but significant reduction in BP. This effect can be potentially exploited to aid in controlling BP in hypertensive patients with hyperuricemia.     

Effects of Intensive Antihypertensive Treatment on Chinese Hypertensive Patients Older Than 70 Years

This study was performed to investigate whether intensive antihypertensive treatment with achieved blood pressure (BP) ≤140/90 mm Hg, as compared with standard treatment with achieved BP ≤150/90 mm Hg, could further improve cardiovascular outcomes in Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years. A total of 724 participants were randomly assigned to intensive or standard antihypertensive treatment. After a mean follow‐up of 4 years, the mean achieved BP was 135.7/76.2 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and 149.7/82.1 mm Hg in the standard treatment group. The visit‐to‐visit variability in systolic BP and diastolic BP was lower in the intensive group than that in the standard group. Intensive antihypertensive treatment, compared with the standard treatment, decreased total and cardiovascular mortality by 41.7% and 50.3%, respectively, and reduced fatal/nonfatal stroke by 42.0% and heart failure death by 62.7%. Cox regression analysis indicated that the mean systolic BP (P=.020; 95% confidence interval, 1.006–1.069) and the standard deviation of systolic BP (P=.033; 95% confidence interval, 1.006–1.151) were risk factors for cardiovascular endpoint events. Intensive antihypertensive treatment with achieved 136/76 mm Hg was beneficial for Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years. Long‐term visit‐to‐visit variability in systolic BP was positively associated with the incidence of cardiovascular events.     

Effects of aliskiren-based therapy on ambulatory blood pressure profile, central hemodynamics, and arterial stiffness in nondiabetic mild to moderate hypertensive patients

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;00:000–000. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Aliskiren is a direct renin inhibitor that exerts its effect at the rate‐limiting step of the renin‐angiotensin system. This study was performed to examine the beneficial effects of aliskiren‐based antihypertensive therapy on the ambulatory blood pressure (BP) profile, central hemodybamics, and arterial stiffness in untreated Japanese patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Twenty‐one Japanese nondiabetic patients with untreated mild to moderate essential hypertension were initially given aliskiren once daily at 150 mg, and the dose was titrated up to 300 mg as needed. After 12 weeks of aliskiren‐based therapy, the clinic, ambulatory, and central BP values as well as brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) were all significantly decreased compared with baseline (clinic systolic BP, 151±11 mm Hg vs 132±11 mm Hg; clinic diastolic BP, 91±13 mm Hg vs 82±9 mm Hg; 24‐hour systolic BP, 144±12 mm Hg vs 133±11 mm Hg; 24‐hour diastolic BP, 88±8 mm Hg vs 81±9 mm Hg; central BP, 162±16 mm Hg vs 148±14 mm Hg; baPWV, 1625±245 cm/s vs 1495±199 cm/s; P<.05). These results show that aliskiren, as a first‐line regimen, improves the ambulatory BP profile and may have protective vascular effects in Japanese nondiabetic patients with untreated mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

Efficacy and safety of renal denervation in elderly patients with resistant hypertension

Background : Catheter‐based renal sympathetic denervation (RD) causes significant blood pressure (BP) reductions in patients with resistant hypertension (rHTN). However, hypertensive elderly patients reportedly have a lower sympathetic tone than younger patients and a BP lowering effect of RD in this population has not yet been demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of RD in elderly patients. Methods : We reviewed all consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years (mean: 78 years) with rHTN treated with RD. Twenty‐four patients were included in this prospective study. Office and ambulatory BPs were assessed at baseline and 6‐months follow‐up. Primary endpoint was the change in office systolic BP at 6 months. Results : Baseline mean office BP was 173/86 ± 21/13 mm Hg. Baseline 24‐hr mean ambulatory BP, available in 22 patients, was 158/80 ± 20/13 mm Hg. Baseline creatinine was 1.0 ± 0.18 mg/dl and mean number of antihypertensive agents at baseline 4.3 ± 1.4. No device‐ or procedure‐related adverse events occurred. At 6‐months follow‐up, the mean office BP decreased by 19/11 ± 29/16 mm Hg (P < 0.01 compared to baseline). Mean systolic 24 hr ambulatory BP, available in 17 patients, decreased by 9/5 ± 13/13 mm Hg. Antihypertensive medications could be reduced in nine patients. Furthermore, renal function was not impaired. Conclusion : According to our findings, a similar magnitude of BP reduction as reported in previous trials can be expected in elderly patients. Elderly patients with rHTN should not be excluded from renal denervation. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Similar Blood Pressure Values Across Racial and Economic Groups: Baseline Data from a Group Randomized Clinical Trial

This paper examines baseline characteristics from a prospective, cluster‐randomized trial in 32 primary care offices. Offices were first stratified by percentage of minorities and level of clinical pharmacy services and then randomized into 1 of 3 study groups. The only differences between randomized arms were for marital status (P=.03) and type of insurance coverage (P<.001). Blood pressures (BPs) were similar in Caucasians and minority patients, primarily blacks, who were hypertensive at baseline. On multivariate analyses, patients who were 65 years and older had higher systolic BP (152.4±14.3 mm Hg), but lower diastolic BP (77.3±11.8 mm Hg) compared with those younger than 65 years (147.4±15.0/88.6±10.6 mm Hg, P<.001 for both systolic and diastolic BP). Other factors significantly associated with higher systolic BP were a longer duration of hypertension (P=.04) and lower basal metabolic index (P=.011). Patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease had a lower systolic BP than those without these conditions (P<.0001). BP was similar across racial and socioeconomic groups for patients with uncontrolled hypertension in primary care, suggesting that patients with uncontrolled hypertension and an established primary care relationship likely have different reasons for poor BP control than other patient populations.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with chronic kidney disease and resistant hypertension

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012; 14:611–617. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The role of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) has not been well‐studied in patients with chronic kidney disease and resistant hypertension. In a retrospective study of the outpatient chronic kidney disease population, 156 patients with chronic kidney disease and resistant hypertension who had 24‐hour ABPM and clinic BP measurements were identified. Resistant hypertension was defined as uncontrolled clinic BP while taking ≥3 medications including a diuretic or controlled BP while taking ≥4 medications. Within the study group, ambulatory BP <130/80 mm Hg was found in 35.9% of all patients. Only 6.4% had both ambulatory and clinic BP <130/80 mm Hg. Prevalence of white‐coat hypertension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension were 29.5%, 5.8%, and 58.3%, respectively. Compared with patients with sustained hypertension, more patients in the white‐coat hypertension group had low nocturnal average systolic BP (defined as nocturnal average systolic BP <100 mm Hg) (17.4% vs 0%) and low 24‐hour average diastolic BP (defined as 24‐hour average diastolic BP <60 mm Hg) (52.2% vs 22%, P<.01). ABPM provides more reliable assessment of BP in patients with chronic kidney disease and resistant hypertension.     

Prediction of Blood Pressure and Blood Pressure Change With a Genetic Risk Score

The authors investigated whether a genetic risk score (GRS) constructed of 32 single nucleotide polymorphisms would predict incident hypertension and blood pressure (BP) change over time in a population cohort during an 11‐year follow‐up (n=5402 at baseline, 3266 at follow‐up). In multivariable models, GRS was associated with higher systolic/diastolic BP values at baseline (β±standard error [SE], 1.04±0.14/1.11±0.13 mm Hg; P<.0001 for both) and at reinvestigation (β±SE, 0.84±0.18/0.79±0.16 mm Hg; P<.0001 for both). Among participants who were normotensive at baseline (n=2045), GRS was not independently associated with systolic/diastolic BP change over time (β±SE, 0.16±0.18/0.20±0.18 mm Hg; P≥.28 for both). In participants in the top tertile of the GRS, as compared with the bottom tertile, the predicted increase in systolic/diastolic BP was 1.18±0.78/0.70±0.49 mm Hg (P=.046/.15) greater and the odds ratio for incident hypertension was 33% higher (P=.03). These data show that GRS is strongly associated with BP but weakly associated with BP increase and incident hypertension in a late middle‐aged population.     

Effectiveness of the selective aldosterone blocker,eplerenone, in patients with resistant hypertension

Resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled hypertension despite intensive treatment with at least three antihypertensive agents, one of which ideally should be a diuretic. To determine the efficacy and safety of the selective aldosterone antagonist eplerenone in this population, we studied patients with resistant hypertension (clinic blood pressure [BP] >140 mm Hg systolic or >90 mm Hg diastolic on maximal doses of more than three antihypertensive agents, including a loop or thiazide diuretic). At baseline and after 12 weeks of eplerenone therapy (50 to 100 mg daily titrated to effect), patients underwent clinic and 24-hour BP measurements, serum potassium, plasma renin activity, and serum aldosterone measurements. Patients (n = 52) completing the trial averaged 62 ± 10 years of age, were overweight (mean body mass index, 32.1 ± 5.5 kg/m²), and had variable renal function (glomerular filtration rate, 106 ± 38 mL/minute); 70% were men and 74% were non-Black. The mean number of antihypertensive agents at baseline was 3.7 ± 0.8 (range, three to seven drugs) to achieve a clinic BP of 150.5/84.1 mm Hg. The mean serum aldosterone was 12.9 ± 7.6 ng/mL and plasma renin activity was 2.3 ± 2.7 ng/mL/hour. After eplerenone, the change from baseline in the clinic BP was −17.6/−7.9 mm Hg (P < .0001 for both systolic blood pressure [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and in 24-hour BP was −12.2/−6.0 mm Hg (P < .0001 for both). The number of antihypertensive drugs decreased to 3.3 ± 0.9 (range, one to seven agents). Plasma potassium increased by 0.30 ± 0.45 mEq/L (P < .001), but there were only three instances in two patients of mild hyperkalemia (potassium >5.5 mEq/L, but <6.0 mEq/L), despite all patients being on a background therapy that included an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Reductions in clinic and ambulatory BP were related to baseline clinic and ambulatory BP values (r² > 0.3 for both SBP and DBP, P < .0001), weakly related to baseline serum aldosterone (r = −0.30; P = .05), and unrelated to plasma renin activity, age, gender, or race. In conclusion, eplerenone demonstrated substantial efficacy in treatment-resistant hypertension and was well-tolerated with modest changes in plasma potassium. Serum aldosterone and plasma renin activity did not predict BP responses to eplerenone in this population.     

A comparison of home measurement and ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure in the adjustment of antihypertensive treatment

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in the adjustment of antihypertensive treatment. METHODS: After a 4-week washout period, patients whose untreated daytime diastolic ambulatory BP averaged > or = 85 mm Hg were randomized to be treated according to their ambulatory or home BP. Antihypertensive treatment was adjusted at 6-week intervals according to the mean daytime ambulatory diastolic BP or the mean home diastolic BP, depending on the patient's randomization group. If the diastolic BP stayed above 80 mm Hg, the physician blinded to randomization intensified hypertensive treatment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients completed the study. During the 24-week follow-up period both systolic and diastolic BP decreased significantly within both groups (P < .001). At the end of the study, the systolic/diastolic differences between ambulatory (n = 46) and home (n = 52) BP groups in home, daytime ambulatory, night-time ambulatory, and 24-h ambulatory BP changes averaged 2.6/2.6 mm Hg, 0.6/1.7 mm Hg, 1.0/1.4 mm Hg, and 0.6/1.5 mm Hg, respectively (P range .06 to .75) A nonsignificant trend to more intensive drug therapy in the ambulatory BP group and a nonsignificant trend to larger share of patients reaching (57.7% v 43.5%, P = .16) the target pressure in the home BP group was observed due to the 3.8 mm Hg difference in ambulatory and home diastolic BP at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on either ambulatory or home BP measurement led to good BP control. No significant between-group differences in BP changes were seen at the end of the study. Additional research is needed to provide more conclusive results.     

Nighttime Home Blood Pressure and the Risk of Hypertensive Target Organ Damage

In ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, nighttime BP has a superior ability to predict hypertensive target organ damage than awake BP. We evaluated whether nighttime BP, assessed by a home BP monitor, was associated with hypertensive target organ damage. We measured clinic BP, out-of-clinic BP including nighttime home BP, and the urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) in 854 patients who had cardiovascular risk factors. Nighttime home BP was measured at 2:00, 3:00, and 4:00 am, in addition to clinic, awake ambulatory, nighttime ambulatory, and awake home BP. Nighttime home systolic BP (SBP) was slightly higher than nighttime ambulatory SBP (difference, 2.6 mm Hg; P<0.001). Clinic (r=0.186), awake ambulatory (r=0.173), nighttime ambulatory (r=0.194), awake home (r=0.298), and nighttime home (r=0.311) SBPs were all associated with log-transformed UACR (all P<0.001). The correlation coefficient for the relationship between nighttime home SBP and log-transformed UACR was significantly greater than that for the relationship between nighttime ambulatory SBP and log-transformed UACR (P<0.001). The goodness of fit of the association between SBP and UACR was improved by adding nighttime home SBP to the other SBPs (P<0.001). Nighttime home diastolic BP also improved the goodness-of-fit of the association between diastolic BP and UACR (P=0.001). Similar findings were observed for the left ventricular mass index in the subgroup (N=594). In conclusion, nighttime home BP is slightly different from (but comparable to) nighttime ambulatory BP. The addition of nighttime home BP to other BP measures improves the association of BP with hypertensive target organ damage.     

Automated office blood pressure is in agreement with awake and mean 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure at the lower blood pressure range

Automated office blood pressure measurement eliminates the white coat effect and is associated with awake ambulatory blood pressure. This study examined whether automated office blood pressure values at lower limits were comparable to those of awake and mean 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure. A total of 552 patients were included in the study, involving 293 (53.1%) men and 259 (46.9%) women, with a mean age 55.0 ± 12.5, of whom 36% were treated for hypertension. Both systolic and diastolic automated office blood pressures exhibited lower values compared to awake ambulatory blood pressure among 254 individuals with systolic automated office blood pressure <130 mm Hg (119 ± 8 mm Hg vs 125 ± 11 mm Hg, P < .0001 and 75 ± 9 mm Hg vs 79 ± 9 mm Hg, P < .0001 for systolic and diastolic BPs, respectively). Furthermore, the comparison of systolic automated office blood pressure to the mean 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure levels also showed lower values (119 ± 8 vs 121 ± 10, P = .007), whereas the diastolic automated office blood pressure measurements were similar to 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure values. Our findings show that when automated office blood pressure readings express values <130/80 mm Hg in repeated office visits, further investigation should be performed only when masked hypertension is suspected; otherwise, higher automated office blood pressure values could be used for the diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension, especially in individuals with organ damage.     

Enhanced Blood Pressure–Lowering Effect of Olmesartan in Hypertensive Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease–Associated Sympathetic Hyperactivity: HONEST Study

To investigate the blood pressure (BP)–lowering effect of olmesartan in relation to chronic kidney disease (CKD)–associated sympathetic nerve activity, a subanalysis was performed using data from the first 16 weeks of the Home BP Measurement With Olmesartan‐Naive Patients to Establish Standard Target Blood Pressure (HONEST) study, a prospective observational study of hypertensive patients. Essential hypertensive patients who took no antihypertensive agent at baseline were classified based on baseline morning home systolic BP (MHSBP) in quartiles. In each class, patients were further classified based on baseline morning home pulse rate (MHPR). A subgroup analysis in patients with/without chronic kidney disease (CKD) was performed. A total of 5458 patients (mean age, 63.0 years; 51.6% women) were included. In the 4th quartile of baseline MHSBP (≥165 mm Hg), patients with MHPR ≥70 beats per minute had a greater BP reduction (by 3.2 mm Hg) than those with MHPR <70 beats per minute after 16 weeks of olmesartan‐based treatment (P=.0005). An even greater BP reduction (by 6.6 mm Hg) was observed in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD in this group (P=.0084). Olmesartan was more effective in hypertensive patients with high MHSBP and MHPR ≥70 beats per minute, especially in patients with CKD. Olmesartan may have enhanced BP‐lowering effects by improving renal ischemia in hypertensive CKD patients with potential increased sympathetic nerve activity.     

Physician‐Pharmacist Co‐Management and 24‐Hour Blood Pressure Control

The objectives of this study were to compare indices of 24‐hour blood pressure (BP) following a physician‐pharmacist collaborative intervention and to describe the associated changes in antihypertensive medications. This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, cluster‐randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 family medicine clinics randomized to co‐managed (n=3 clinics, 176 patients) or control (n=3 clinics, 198 patients) groups. Mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) was significantly lower in the co‐managed vs the control group: daytime BP 122.8 mm Hg vs 134.4 mm Hg (P<.001); nighttime SBP 114.8 mm Hg vs 123.7 mm Hg (P<.001); and 24‐hour SBP 120.4 mm Hg vs 131.8 mm Hg (P<.001), respectively. Significantly more drug changes were made in the co‐managed than in the control group (2.7 vs 1.1 changes per patient, P<.001), and there was greater diuretic use in co‐managed patients (79.6% vs 62.6%, P<.001). Ambulatory BPs were significantly lower for the patients who had a diuretic added during the first month compared with those who never had a diuretic added (P<.01). Physician‐pharmacist co‐management significantly improved ambulatory BP compared with the control group. Antihypertensive drug therapy was intensified much more for patients in the co‐managed group.     

Daytime Systolic Ambulatory Blood Pressure With a Two‐Step Switch From Candesartan to Olmesartan Monotherapy and the Fixed‐Dose Combination of Olmesartan/Amlodipine in Patients With Uncontrolled Essential Hypertension (SEVICONTROL‐2)

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of the fixed‐dose combination olmesartan/amlodipine 40/10 mg in patients with moderate essential hypertension not controlled on candesartan 32 mg. This was a prospective, single‐arm, phase IV study. The primary endpoint was the change in mean daytime systolic blood pressure (BP). A total of 77 of 89 screened patients started candesartan 32 mg, 62 olmesartan 40 mg, and 57 olmesartan 40 mg/amlodipine 10 mg. Mean daytime systolic BP was reduced by 9.8±15.2 mm Hg (P<.001) vs candesartan monotherapy. Office BP reduction was 9.2±18.8/5.0±8.9 mm Hg (P<0.001). Treatment goals (<140/90 mm Hg for office and <135/85 mm Hg for ambulatory BP) were achieved in 58.2% and 78.4% of patients, respectively. There was one drug‐related adverse event (edema) and no serious adverse events. Patients of Caucasian ethnicity with moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled on candesartan experienced a further drop in BP using olmesartan and amlodipine.     

Efficacy and tolerability of initial high vs low doses of S‐(‐)‐amlodipine in hypertension

In an 8‐week randomized trial of patients with mild or moderate hypertension, the authors investigated the efficacy and tolerability of initial high (5.0 mg/d) vs low (2.5 mg/d) doses of S‐(‐)‐amlodipine (equivalent to 5 and 10 mg of racemic amlodipine, respectively). In the S‐(‐)‐amlodipine 2.5‐mg group (n=263), 24‐hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (±standard deviation) decreased from 131.5±15.0/82.1±10.7 mm Hg at baseline to 126.0±13.5/78.5±9.5 mm Hg at 8 weeks of follow‐up by a least square mean (±standard error) change of 6.0±0.6/3.8±0.4 mm Hg. In the S‐(‐)‐amlodipine 5‐mg group (n=260), the corresponding changes were from 133.6±13.7/83.1±9.9 mm Hg to 125.0±12.0/78.2±8.9 mm Hg by 8.1±0.6/4.7±0.4 mm Hg, respectively. The between‐group differences in changes in 24‐hour systolic/diastolic blood pressure were 2.1/0.9 (P=.02/.17) mm Hg. Similar trends were observed for daytime and nighttime ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. The incidence rate was similar for all adverse events. An initial high dose of S‐(‐)‐amlodipine improved ambulatory blood pressure control with similar tolerability as an initial low dose in hypertension.     

Effects of different statin types and dosages on systolic/diastolic blood pressure: Retrospective analysis of 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure database

We previously demonstrated lower diastolic blood pressure (BP) levels under statin therapy in adult individuals who consecutively underwent 24‐hour ambulatory BP monitoring and compared their levels to untreated outpatients. Here we evaluated systolic/diastolic BP levels according to different statin types and dosages. 987 patients (47.5% female, age 66.0 ± 10.1 years, BMI 27.7 ± 4.6 kg/m², clinic BP 146.9 ± 19.4/86.1 ± 12.1 mm Hg, 24‐hour BP 129.2 ± 14.4/74.9 ± 9.2 mm Hg) were stratified into 4 groups: 291 (29.5%) on simvastatin 10‐80 mg/d, 341 (34.5%) on atorvastatin 10‐80 mg/d, 187 (18.9%) on rosuvastatin 5‐40 mg/d, and 168 (17.0%) on other statins. There were no significant BP differences among patients treated by various statin types and dosages, except in lower clinic (P = .007) and daytime (P = .013) diastolic BP in patients treated with simvastatin and atorvastatin compared to other statins. Favorable effects of statins on systolic/diastolic BP levels seem to be independent of types or dosages, thus suggesting a potential class effect of these drugs.     

Home Blood Pressure Control After the Great East Japan Earthquake in Patients on Chronic Hemodialysis

At 14:46 on 11 March 2011, northeastern Japan was struck by a major earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale (the Great East Japan Earthquake). Several reports have suggested a transient blood pressure (BP) increase after a major earthquake, but its impact on BP in chronic dialysis patients has not been reported. In a retrospective review of 25 hemodialysis patients who were residents of Koriyama City, changes in the morning home BP after the earthquake were investigated. Home systolic and diastolic BPs were significantly elevated 1 week after the earthquake (158 ± 16 mm Hg vs. 151 ± 13 mm Hg, P < 0.01, for systolic; 81 ± 13 mm Hg vs. 78 ± 11 mm Hg, P = 0.01, for diastolic). Mean home BP 1 week after the earthquake was unchanged from baseline in patients treated with sympatholytics and/or renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. BP values returned to baseline by 4 weeks after the earthquake, but percent changes in mean BP were significantly greater even 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after the earthquake in patients not treated with RAS inhibitors than in those treated with RAS inhibitors (2 weeks 7.0% ± 4.5% vs. 0.2% ± 5.0%, P < 0.01; 4 weeks 4.4% ± 5.9% vs. ?1.8% ± 5.3%, P = 0.02; 6 weeks 4.6% ± 4.9% vs. ?1.9% ± 3.9%, P < 0.01). On multiple regression analysis, RAS inhibitor use had an independent relationship with percentage increases in mean BP during the 6 weeks after the earthquake. Home BP was significantly increased after a major earthquake in patients on chronic hemodialysis. Prolonged deterioration of BP control after the earthquake was associated with non‐use of RAS inhibitors.