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.     

Blood pressure–lowering efficacy of indapamide SR/amlodipine combination in older patients with hypertension: A post hoc analysis of the NESTOR trial (Natrilix SR vs Enalapril in Hypertensive Type 2 Diabetics With Microalbuminuria)

To examine the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of indapamide sustained‐release (SR)/amlodipine compared with enalapril/amlodipine in patients 65 years and older with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) on monotherapy, a post hoc analysis of the NESTOR trial (Natrilix SR vs Enalapril in Hypertensive Type 2 Diabetics With Microalbuminuria) was conducted. NESTOR randomized 570 patients (n=197, aged ≥65 years) with hypertension (systolic BP 140–180/diastolic BP <110 mm Hg) to indapamide SR 1.5 mg or enalapril 10 mg. If target BP (<140/85 mm Hg) was not achieved at 6 weeks, amlodipine 5 mg was added with uptitration to 10 mg if required. A total of 107 patients aged 65 years and older received dual therapy (53 indapamide SR/amlodipine and 54 enalapril/amlodipine). Amlodipine uptitration occurred in 22 and 24 patients, respectively. At 52 weeks, mean systolic BP (±SE) reduction was significantly greater with indapamide SR/amlodipine vs enalapril/amlodipine 6.2±2.7 mm Hg (P=.02). Indapamide SR/amlodipine was also associated with a greater BP response rate (88% vs 75%, respectively). Both regimens were well tolerated. Indapamide SR/amlodipine may be more effective than enalapril/amlodipine for lowering systolic BP in patients with hypertension aged 65 years and older.     

The first study comparing a wearable watch‐type blood pressure monitor with a conventional ambulatory blood pressure monitor on in‐office and out‐of‐office settings

Wearable blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices which measure BP levels accurately both in and out of the office are valuable for hypertension management using digital technology. The authors have conducted the first comparison study of BPs measured by a recently developed wrist‐worn watch‐type oscillometric BP monitoring (WBPM) device, the “HeartGuide,” versus BPs measured by an ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) device, A&D TM‐2441, in the office (total of 4 readings alternately measured in the sitting position) and outside the office (30‐minutes interval measurements during daytime) in 50 consecutive patients (mean age 66.1 ± 10.8 years). The 2 BP monitoring devices were simultaneously worn on the same non‐dominant arm throughout the monitoring period. The mean difference (±SD) in systolic BPs (average of 2 readings) between WBPM and ABPM was 0.8 ± 12.8 mm Hg (P = .564) in the office and 3.2 ± 17.0 mm Hg (P < .001) outside the office. The proportion of differences that were within ±10 mm Hg was 58.7% in the office and 47.2% outside the office. In a mixed‐effects model analysis, the temporal trend in the difference between the out‐of‐office BPs measured by the two devices was not statistically significant. In conclusion, the difference between the WBPM and ABPM device was acceptable both in and out of the office.     

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.     

A randomized controlled trial on the blood pressure–lowering effect of amlodipine and nifedipine‐GITS in sustained hypertension

In a multicenter, randomized trial, we investigated whether the long half‐time dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine was more efficacious than the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation of nifedipine in lowering ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in sustained hypertension (clinic systolic/diastolic BP 140‐179/90‐109 mm Hg and 24‐hour systolic/diastolic BP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine 5‐10 mg/day or nifedipine‐GITS 30‐60 mg/day. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed for 24 hours at baseline and 4‐week treatment and for 48 hours at 8‐week treatment with a dose of medication missed on the second day. After 8‐week treatment, BP was similarly reduced in the amlodipine (n = 257) and nifedipine‐GITS groups (n = 248) for both clinic and ambulatory (24‐hour systolic/diastolic BP 10.3/6.5 vs 10.9/6.3 mm Hg, P ≥ 0.24) measurements. However, after missing a dose of medication, ambulatory BP reductions were greater in the amlodipine than nifedipine‐GITS group, with a significant (P ≤ 0.04) between‐group difference in 24‐hour (–1.2 mm Hg) and daytime diastolic BP (–1.5 mm Hg). In conclusion, amlodipine and nifedipine‐GITS were efficacious in reducing 24‐hour BP. When a dose of medication was missed, amlodipine became more efficacious than nifedipine‐GITS.     

Renal Denervation in High-Risk Patients With Hypertension

BackgroundRenal denervation (RDN) is under investigation for treatment of uncontrolled hypertension and might represent an attractive treatment for patients with high cardiovascular (CV) risk. It is important to determine whether baseline CV risk affects the efficacy of RDN.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess blood pressure (BP) reduction and event rates after RDN in patients with various comorbidities, testing the hypothesis that RDN is effective and durable in these high-risk populations.MethodsBP reduction and adverse events over 3 years were evaluated for several high-risk subgroups in the GSR (Global proSpective registrY for syMPathetic renaL denervatIon in seleCted IndicatIons Through 3 Years Registry), an international registry of RDN in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (n = 2,652). Comparisons were made for patients age ≥65 years versus age <65 years, with versus without isolated systolic hypertension, with versus without atrial fibrillation, and with versus without diabetes mellitus. Baseline cardiovascular risk was estimated using the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) atherosclerosis cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score.ResultsReduction in 24-h systolic BP at 3 years was −8.9 ± 20.1 mm Hg for the overall cohort, and for high-risk subgroups, BP reduction was −10.4 ± 21.0 mm Hg for resistant hypertension, −8.7 ± 17.4 mm Hg in patients age ≥65 years, −10.2 ± 17.9 mm Hg in patients with diabetes, −8.6 ± 18.7 mm Hg in isolated systolic hypertension, −10.1 ± 20.3 mm Hg in chronic kidney disease, and −10.0 ± 19.1 mm Hg in atrial fibrillation (p < 0.0001 compared with baseline for all). BP reduction in patients with measurements at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months showed similar reductions in office and 24-h BP for patients with varying baseline ASCVD risk scores, which was sustained to 3 years. Adverse event rates at 3 years were higher for patients with higher baseline CV risk.ConclusionsBP reduction after RDN was similar for patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across the range of ASCVD risk scores. The impact of baseline risk on clinical event reduction by RDN-induced BP changes could be evaluated in further studies. (Global proSpective registrY for syMPathetic renaL denervatIon in seleCted IndicatIons Through 3 Years Registry; NCT01534299)     

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.     

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.     

White‐coat and masked hypertension diagnoses in chronic kidney disease patients

The purpose of this study was to analyze which 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) parameters should be used on masked hypertension (MH) and white‐coat hypertension (WCH) diagnoses in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Non‐dialysis CKD patients underwent 24‐hour ABPM examination between 01/27/2004 and 02/16/2012. They were followed from the 24‐hour ABPM to January/2014 in an observational study. The WCH definitions tested were as follows: (a) office blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140/90 mm Hg and daytime ABPM BP ≤ 135/85 mm Hg (old criterion); and (b) office BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg and 24‐hour ABPM BP ≤ 130/80 mm Hg, daytime ABPM BP ≤ 135/85 mm Hg, and nighttime ABPM BP ≤ 120/70 mm Hg (new criterion). The MH definitions tested were as follows: (a) office BP < 140/90 mm Hg and daytime ABPM BP > 135/85 mm Hg (old criterion); and (b) office BP < 140/90 mm Hg and 24‐hour ABPM BP > 130/80 mm Hg or daytime ABPM BP > 135/85 mm Hg or nighttime ABPM BP > 120/70 mm Hg (new criterion). The two definitions' predictive capacity was compared, regarding both WCH and MH. Cardiovascular mortality was the primary and all‐cause mortality was the secondary outcome. Cox regression was adjusted to the variables: glomerular filtration rate, age, diabetes mellitus, and active smoking. There were 367 patients studied. The old criterion (exclusive mean daytime ABPM BP) was the only to distinguish sustained hypertension from WCH (adjusted HR: 3.730; 95% CI: 1.068‐13.029; P = .039), regarding all‐cause mortality. Additionally, the old criterion was the only one to distinguish normotension and MH, regarding cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR: 7.641; 95% CI: 1.277‐45.738; P = .026). Therefore, WCH and MH definitions based exclusively on daytime ABPM BP values (old criterion) were able to better distinguish mortality in this studied CKD cohort.     

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized,double‐blind, 8‐week study

A majority of patients with hypertension fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) control despite treatment with commonly prescribed drugs. This randomized, double‐blind phase III trial assessed the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (97/103 mg) to continued olmesartan 20 mg in reducing ambulatory systolic BP after 8‐week treatment in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg alone. A total of 376 patients were randomized to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (n = 188) or olmesartan (n = 188). Superior reductions in 24‐hour mean ambulatory systolic BP were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the olmesartan group (−4.3 mm Hg vs −1.1 mm Hg, P < .001). Reductions in 24‐hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP and pulse pressure and office systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan (P < .014). A greater proportion of patients achieved BP control with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups. Compared with continued olmesartan, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective and generally safe in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg.     

Comparison of day‐to‐day blood pressure variability in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to those without diabetes: Asia BP@Home Study

Blood pressure variability (BPV) has been shown to be independently associated with cardiovascular (CV) mortality and morbidity. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have also been shown to have increased BPV. We aimed to compare BPV in hypertensive patients with diabetes with those without diabetes. A total of 1443 hypertensive patients measured their blood pressure (BP) twice in the morning and twice before bed at home for a week. Demographic data, history of T2DM, and anti‐hypertensive use were captured. Clinic BP was measured twice in the clinic. Control of BP was defined as clinic systolic BP (SBP) <140 mm Hg and home SBP < 135 mm Hg. BPV was based on home SBP measurements. A total of 362(25.1%) hypertensives had diabetes and 47.4% were male. Mean age was 62.3 ± 12.1 years. There was no difference in the mean clinic SBP in both groups (139.9 mm Hg vs 138.4 mm Hg P = .188). However, the mean morning home SBP was significantly higher and control rate lower in hypertensives with diabetes than those without (132.3 ± 15 mm Hg vs 129.7 ± 14.4 mm Hg P = .005, 39.4% vs 47.6% P = .007), respectively. Masked uncontrolled morning hypertension was higher in those with diabetes versus those without (12.8% vs 8.4%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in BPV between those with and without diabetes. In summary, clinic SBP was similar in hypertensives with or without diabetes. However, control of BP based on both clinic and home SBP thresholds was poorer in hypertensives with diabetes compared to those without. Masked uncontrolled morning hypertension was higher in those with diabetes than those without. There was no difference in BPV between the two groups.     

Masked hypertensives: A disguised arterial stiffness population

The aim of this study was to determine whether masked hypertension (MHT) and white coat hypertension (WCHT) could be related to increased arterial stiffness and to identify the best office cutoff values of office BP for the diagnosis of MHT and WCHT. A total of 542 consecutive patients (50.2% male, age 42.5 ± 26.2 years) were included in the study. Patients were never treated before for hypertension. Patients were classified as true normotensives (44%), true hypertensives (30%), WC hypertensives (19%), and masked hypertensives (7%). Carotid‐femoral pulse wave velocity (c‐f PWV) was 9.91 ± 0.20 m/s in true normotension, 10.26 ± 0.27 m/s in WCHT, 11.28 ± 0.47 m/s in MHT, and 11.86 ± 0.23 m/s in true hypertension after adjustment for age and sex. Decision limits yielding 65% sensitivity were 130 mm Hg for office systolic BP with 72% specificity for the diagnosis of MHT. The optimal cutoff value of 80 mm Hg for office diastolic BP provides 60% sensitivity and 68% specificity. Decision limits yielding 63% sensitivity were 150 mm Hg for office systolic BP with 72% specificity for the diagnosis of WCHT. The optimal cutoff value of 95 mm Hg for office diastolic BP provides 75% sensitivity and 51% specificity. The presence of MHT should be taken into account when increased c‐f PWV is detected in the absence of office hypertension. The optimal office BP of 130/80 mm Hg provides the best sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of MHT. As regards the diagnosis of WCHT, the cutoff value of 150/95 mm Hg seems to provide the best option.     

Short‐term effects of perindopril‐amlodipine vs perindopril‐indapamide on blood pressure control in sub‐Saharan type 2 diabetic individuals newly diagnosed for hypertension: A double‐blinded randomized controlled trial

Poor blood pressure (BP) control contributes to complications in sub‐Saharan African (SSA) type 2 diabetic individuals. Experts have advocated the use of combination therapies for effective BP control in these patients. The suggested combinations should include a RAAS antagonist and either a CCB or a thiazide diuretic; however, their efficacy is yet to be established in SSA. We investigated the short‐term effects of two combination therapies on BP control in SSA type 2 diabetic individuals. This was a double‐blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at the Yaoundé Central Hospital (Cameroon) from October 2016 to May 2017. We included type 2 diabetic patients, newly diagnosed for hypertension. After baseline assessment and 24‐hour ABPM, participants were allocated to receive either a fixed combination of perindopril + amlodipine or perindopril + indapamide for 42 days. Data analyses followed the intention‐to‐treat principle. We included fifteen participants (8 being females) in each group. Both combinations provided good circadian BP control after 6 weeks with similar efficacy. Twenty‐four‐hour SBP dropped from 144 to 145 mm Hg vs 128 to 126 mm Hg with perindopril‐amlodipine and perindopril‐indapamide, respectively (P = 0.003 for both groups). Twenty‐four‐hour DBP dropped from 85 to 78 mm Hg (P = 0.013) vs 89 to 79 mm Hg (P = 0.006) in the same respective groups. No significant adverse effect was reported. A fixed initial combination of perindopril‐amlodipine or perindopril‐indapamide achieved similar effective BP control after 6 weeks in SSA type 2 diabetic individuals with newly diagnosed hypertension. Therefore, these combinations can be used interchangeably in this indication.     

Effect of Switching from Telmisartan,Valsartan, Olmesartan,or Losartan to Candesartan on Morning Hypertension

The Candesartan Cooperative Research of Therapy Design for Early Morning Hypertension in CHIBA was designed to investigate whether switching from angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) except candesartan to candesartan might be effective in Japanese patients with morning hypertension. Seventy-eight mild to moderate hypertensive patients, who were treated with the standard doses of ARBs except candesartan (losartan, 50 mg; valsartan, 80 mg; telmisartan, 40 mg; or olmesartan, 20 mg), were entered into 12-week treatment period with candesartan 8 mg according to a multicenter, open-label design. Morning and office blood pressures (BPs) were significantly reduced (morning, ?10.1 ± 10.5/?4.5 ± 8.4 mm Hg; office, ?13.1 ± 17.3/?6.2 ± 11.3 mm Hg) after medication change. Target BPs (morning BPs ≤ 135/85 mm Hg and office BPs ≤ 140/90 mm Hg) achievement rates were 42.9% in the morning and 64.3% at office. No adverse events were recognized in all patients. Candesartan treatment significantly reduced the morning and office BPs compared with other ARBs in Japanese patients with morning hypertension.     

Elevated Diastolic,But Not Systolic,Blood Pressure Measured in the Emergency Department Predicts Future Development of Hypertension in Normotensive Individuals

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is reported in many individuals without hypertension presenting to the emergency department (ED). Whether this condition represents a transient state or is predictive for the development of future hypertension is unknown. This observational prospective study investigated patients admitted to an ED without a diagnosis of hypertension in whom BP values were ≥140/90 mm Hg. The primary outcome was development of hypertension during follow‐up. Overall, 195 patients were recruited and at the end of follow‐up (average 30.14±15.96 months), 142 patients were diagnosed with hypertension (73%). The mean age (50±12.25 vs 48.31±13.9, P=.419) and sex distribution (78 men/64 women vs 24 men/20 women, respectively; P=.148) were similar in both groups. There were significant differences in systolic and diastolic BP between those who developed hypertension on follow‐up and those who did not (177.6 mm Hg±22.6/106.1 mm Hg±16.9 vs 168.6 mm Hg±18/95.2 mm Hg±12.2; P=.011 for systolic BP, P<.001 for diastolic BP). In multivariate analysis the only significant predictive factor for the development of hypertension was diastolic hypertension recorded in the ED (P=.03). Elevated diastolic, but not systolic, BP among patients presenting to the ED is associated with future development of hypertension in previously normotensive individuals.     

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.     

Treated hypertension and the white coat phenomenon: Office readings are inadequate measures of efficacy

To better define the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and to estimate the magnitude of white coat effect (WCE), before and after antihypertensive therapy, we gathered data from an open-label forced-titration study of a combination of antihypertensive drugs that was titrated sequentially, in the order amlodipine, olmesartan, and hydrochlorothiazide, over an 18-week period among 187 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. WCH was defined as daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP) of 135/85 mm Hg or less, but clinic BP of 140/90 mm Hg or more. WCE was obtained as the mean difference between clinic and daytime ambulatory BP. At baseline, the prevalence of WCH was 12%; all but one subject had WCE of >10/5 mm Hg. After treatment, the prevalence of WCH had increased to 39% (P < .001). In the overall population, at baseline, the mean (±SD) WCE for systolic BP was 10.4 ± 10.9 mm Hg and 3.7 ± 8.6 mm Hg for diastolic BP. After treatment, the reduction in systolic WCE was 3.01 ± 0.93 (SE; P < .0001); no reduction was seen for diastolic WCE. Among patients treated with amlodipine-olmesartan combination, WCE at baseline was 11 mm Hg systolic and was attenuated to -0.9 mm Hg. Among patients treated with amlodipine-olmesartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination, systolic WCE was similar at baseline (10.1 mm Hg) and at end of therapy (8.1 mm Hg). Mean systolic difference between dual and triple therapy of 9.9 mm Hg, SE 2.98 was significant (P < .001). The drop in diastolic WCE from 6.4 with dual therapy to -1.2 with triple therapy was also significant (mean difference 7.6, SE 2.2; P < .001). In conclusion, the prevalence of WCH increases three-fold with treatment as a result of fewer patients having sustained hypertension. Thus, out-of-office BP monitoring especially among treated hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes is necessary to provide better assessment of overall BP and response to treatment.     

Regression to the mean in home blood pressure: Analyses of the BP GUIDE study

The aim of our study was to estimate the size of regression to the mean with home blood pressure (BP) monitoring and compare with that for office BP. Office and home BP measures were obtained from the BP GUIDE (value of central Blood Pressure for GUIDing managEment for hypertension) study, in which 286 patients had BP measured every 3 months for 12 months. Patients were categorized by 10 mm Hg strata of baseline BP, and regression to the mean measures was calculated for home and office BP. High baseline home BP readings tended to be lower on long‐term follow‐up, and low baseline readings tended to be higher. For example, patients in the group with mean baseline home systolic BP ≥ 150 mm Hg had a mean baseline systolic BP of 156 mm Hg, which fell to 143 mm Hg at 12 months; and patients in the group with mean baseline home systolic BP < 120 mm Hg had a mean baseline systolic BP of 113 mm Hg which rose to 120 mm Hg at 12 months. Similar patterns were seen in intervention and control groups, and for diastolic BP. The regression dilution ratio for home systolic BP and diastolic BP was 0.52 and 0.64, respectively, compared to 0.40 and 0.55 for office systolic BP and diastolic BP, respectively. Home BP is subject to regression to the mean to a similar degree as office BP. These findings have implications for the diagnosis and management of hypertension using home BP.     

High prevalence of masked uncontrolled morning hypertension in elderly non‐valvular atrial fibrillation patients: Home blood pressure substudy of the ANAFIE Registry

In the ANAFIE Registry home blood pressure subcohort, we evaluated 5204 patients aged ≥75 years with non‐valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to assess blood pressure (BP) control, prevalence of masked hypertension, and anticoagulant use. Mean clinic (C) and home (H) systolic/diastolic BP(SBP/DBP) was 128.5/71.3 and 127.7/72.6 mm Hg, respectively. Overall, 77.5% of patients had hypertension; of these, 27.7%, 13.4%, 23.4%, and 35.6% had well‐controlled, white coat, masked, and sustained hypertension, respectively. Masked hypertension prevalence increased with diabetes, decreased renal function, age ≥80 years, current smoker status, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. By morning/evening average, 59.0% of patients had mean H‐SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg; 48.9% had mean C‐SBP ≥ 130 mm Hg. Early morning hypertension (morning H‐SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg) was found in 65.9% of patients. Although 51.1% of patients had well‐controlled C‐SBP, 52.5% of these had uncontrolled morning H‐SBP. In elderly NVAF patients, morning H‐BP was poorly controlled, and masked uncontrolled morning hypertension remains significant.     

Management of Hypertensive Patients With Multiple Drug Intolerances: A Single‐Center Experience of a Novel Treatment Algorithm

Multiple drug intolerance to antihypertensive medications (MDI‐HTN) is an overlooked cause of nonadherence. In this study, 55 patients with MDI‐HTN were managed with a novel treatment algorithm utilizing sequentially initiated monotherapies or combinations of maximally tolerated doses of fractional tablet doses, liquid formulations, transdermal preparations, and off‐label tablet medications. A total of 10% of referred patients had MDI‐HTN, resulting in insufficient pharmacotherapy and baseline office blood pressure (OBP) of 178±24/94±15 mm Hg. At baseline, patients were intolerant to 7.6±3.6 antihypertensives; they were receiving 1.4±1.1 medications. After 6 months on the novel MDI‐HTN treatment algorithm, both OBP and home blood pressure (HBP) were significantly reduced, with patients receiving 2.0±1.2 medications. At 12 months, OBP was reduced from baseline by 17±5/9±3 mm Hg (P<.01, P<.05) and HBP was reduced by 11±5/12±3 mm Hg (P<.01 for both) while patients were receiving 1.9±1.1 medications. Application of a stratified medicine approach allowed patients to tolerate increased numbers of medications and achieved significant long‐term lowering of blood pressure.