Effects of Olmesartan‐Based Treatment on Masked,White‐Coat,Poorly Controlled,and Well‐Controlled Hypertension: HONEST Study

The authors examined the effects of olmesartan‐based treatment on clinic systolic blood pressure (CSBP) and morning home systolic blood pressure (HSBP) in 21,340 patients with masked hypertension (MH), white‐coat hypertension (WCH), poorly controlled hypertension (PCH), and well‐controlled hypertension (CH) using data from the Home Blood Pressure Measurement With Olmesartan Naive Patients to Establish Standard Target Blood Pressure (HONEST) study. MH, WCH, PCH, and CH were defined using CSBP 140 mm Hg and MHSBP 135 mm Hg as cutoff values at baseline. At 16 weeks, the MH, WCH, PCH, and CH groups had changes in CSBP by ?1.0, ?15.2, ?23.1, and 1.8 mm Hg, and changes in morning HSBP by ?12.5, 1.0, ?20.3, and 2.0 mm Hg, respectively. In conclusion, in “real‐world” clinical practice, olmesartan‐based treatment decreased high morning HBP or CBP without excessive decreases in normal morning HBP or CBP according to patients' BP status.     

Daytime Systolic Ambulatory Blood Pressure With a Direct Switch Between Candesartan Monotherapy and the Fixed‐Dose Combination Olmesartan/Amlodipine in Patients With Uncontrolled Essential Hypertension (SEVICONTROL‐1)

A direct switch of candesartan to the fixed‐dose combination olmesartan/amlodipine in uncontrolled hypertension is a frequent clinical requirement but is not covered by current labeling. An open‐label, prospective, single‐arm phase IIIb study was performed in patients with 32 mg candesartan followed by olmesartan/amlodipine 40/10 mg. The primary endpoint was change in mean daytime systolic blood pressure (BP). Mean daytime systolic BP was reduced by 9.2±12.6 mm Hg (P<.0001) after substituting candesartan for olmesartan/amlodipine (baseline BP 140.2±9.7 mm Hg). The reduction in office BP was 9.4±18.4/4.0±9.6 mm Hg; P<.002). Overall, 61.3% of patients achieved a target BP <140/90 mm Hg using office BP and <135/85 mm Hg using ambulatory BP measurement. There were 8 adverse events with a possible relation to study drug and 1 unrelated serious adverse events. In conclusion, patients with uncontrolled moderate arterial hypertension being treated using candesartan monotherapy achieve a further reduction of BP when switched directly to a fixed‐dose combination of olmesartan 40 mg/amlodipine 10 mg.     

Single‐pill combination of cilnidipine,an L‐/N‐type calcium channel blocker,and valsartan effectively reduces home pulse pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and sympathetic hyperactivity: The HOPE‐Combi survey

The home blood pressure (BP) control by a single‐pill combination of cilnidipine (an L‐/N‐type calcium channel blocker; CCB) and valsartan (HOPE‐Combi) survey is a multicenter, post‐marketing, prospective observational study of a single‐pill combination of cilnidipine 10 mg and valsartan 80 mg (SPC of Cil/Val) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. We examined the effects of the SPC of Cil/Val on morning home systolic BP (MHSBP) and morning home pulse pressure (MHPP) of 1036 patients with hypertension over 12 months. MHSBP decreased by 14.0 mm Hg (P < .01), and MHPP decreased by 6.6 mm Hg (P < .01). Moreover, morning home pulse rate (MHPR) decreased by 2.1 bpm (P < .01). A more progressive and greater decrease in MHSBP (−17.2 vs −10.3 mm Hg, P < .01) and MHPP (−7.6 vs −4.9 mm Hg, P < .01) was observed in patients with higher MHPR (≥70 bpm) than in those with lower MHPR (<70 bpm) over the treatment period. In particular, in patients with a wide MHPP (≥70 mm Hg), the difference in the MHPP reduction was greater in patients with higher MHPR than in those with lower MHPR (−17.9 vs −13.6 mm Hg, P < .01). These results suggested that the SPC of Cil/Val, which possesses the unique sympatholytic characteristics of an L‐/N‐type CCB, was particularly effective in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and sympathetic hyperactivity.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Hypertension in African Americans Aged 60 to 79 Years: Statement From the International Society of Hypertension in Blacks

A 2014 hypertension guideline raised goal systolic blood pressure (SBP) from <140 mm Hg to <150 mm Hg for adults 60 years and older without diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD). The authors aimed to define the status of hypertension in black adults 60 to 79 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2012 and provide practical guidance. Black patients were more often aware and treated (P≤.005) for hypertension than whites and had higher rates of DM/CKD (P<.001), similar control to <140/<90 mm Hg with DM/CKD (P=.59), and lower control without DM/CKD (<140/<90 mm Hg and <150/<90 mm Hg, P≤.01). Limited awareness (<30%) and infrequent health care (>30% 0–1 health‐care visits per year) occurred in untreated black and white hypertensive patients without DM/CKD and BP ≥140/<90 mm Hg. The literature suggests benefits of treated SBP <140 mm Hg in adults 60 to 79 years without DM/CKD. The International Society of Hypertension in Blacks recommends: (1) continuing efforts to achieve BP <140/<90 mm Hg in those with DM/CK, and (2) identifying hypertensive patients without DM/CKD and BP ≥140/<90 mm Hg and treat to an SBP <140 mm Hg in black adults 60–79 years.     

Blood pressure management and guideline adherence in hypertensive emergencies and urgencies: A comparison between telemedically supported and conventional out‐of‐hospital care

Prehospital hypertensive emergencies and urgencies are common, but evidence is lacking. Telemedically supported hypertensive emergencies and urgencies were prospectively collected (April 2014–March 2015) and compared retrospectively with a historical control group of on‐scene physician care in the emergency medical service of Aachen, Germany. Blood pressure management and guideline adherence were evaluated. Telemedical (n=159) vs conventional (n=172) cases: blood pressure reductions of 35±24 mm Hg vs 44±23 mm Hg revealed a group effect adjusted for baseline differences (P=.0006). Blood pressure management in categories: no reduction 6 vs 0 (P=.0121); reduction ≤25% (recommended range) 113 vs 110 patients (P=.2356); reduction >25% to 30% 13 vs 29 (0.020); reduction >30% 12 vs 16 patients (P=.5608). The telemedical approach led to less pronounced blood pressure reductions and a tendency to improved guideline adherence. Telemedically guided antihypertensive care may be an alternative to conventional care especially for potentially underserved areas.     

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.     

Diet‐independent relevance of serum uric acid for blood pressure in a representative population sample

A direct relationship between serum uric acid and blood pressure (BP) has been reported, but the possible confounding impact of diet on this association is unclear. The authors performed a cross‐sectional analysis in the representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (n=6788, aged 18–79 years). In adjusted regression models considering dietary factors, each 1‐mg/dL higher uric acid value was associated with a 1.10‐mm Hg (P=.0002) and a 0.60‐mm Hg (P=.04) higher systolic BP among participants younger than 50 years and participants 50 years and older, respectively. For diastolic BP, uric acid was a significant predictor (β=0.71 mm Hg, P=.0001) among participants younger than 50 years and for participants 50 years and older without antihypertensive treatment. Adjusted odds ratios of hypertension for participants with hyperuricemia were broadly similar in younger (odds ratio, 1.71; P=.02) and older (odds ratio, 1.81; P=.0003) participants. Uric acid is a significant predictor of systolic BP and hypertension prevalence in the general adult population in Germany independently of several known dietary BP influences.     

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.     

Blood Pressure Targets for Patients with Diabetes or Kidney Disease

The most recent scientific guideline statements from foundations and societies dealing with diabetes and kidney disease argue for blood pressure (BP) goals lower than 130/80 mm Hg, but whether the evidence from properly done clinical trials supports this BP level remains questionable. A review of all the evidence suggests that almost all of the data come from retrospective data analyses of randomized cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease (CKD) trials. Meta-analyses of all clinical trials to date demonstrate that reducing BP reduces risk for stroke and coronary heart disease, but none have achieved a mean BP goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg. In fact, only two prospective trials achieved a BP lower than 130/80 mm Hg in people with type 2 diabetes, as did three trials in advanced proteinuric CKD. Of these, one of the two diabetes trials showed a benefit for overall cardiovascular risk reduction, and two of the three kidney disease trials showed a benefit on slowing of advanced CKD. Of note, however, these two trials in CKD had baseline average proteinuria rates of more than 500 mg/day. No benefit of a lower BP was seen in microalbuminuric CKD. Therefore, the totality of the prospective randomized trial evidence indicates that a BP less than 130/80 mm Hg is not defensible to slow nephropathy progression unless proteinuria levels are at least 500 mg/day, and it does not reduce overall cardiovascular events in diabetes. Stroke benefit was uniformly seen at BP levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, however. Therefore, newer guidelines are emerging that state that the BP goal for most people is lower than 140/90 mm Hg with level IA or IB evidence, and that levels lower than 130/80 mm Hg are defensible only if advanced proteinuric CKD is present or stroke risk is very high (i.e., history of prior stroke or several risk factors for stroke, including hypertension, smoking, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia).     

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.     

Impact of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring on Reclassification of Hypertension Prevalence and Control in Older People in Spain

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) accurately classifies blood pressure (BP) status but its impact on the prevalence and control of hypertension is little known. The authors conducted a cross‐sectional study in 2012 among 1047 individuals 60 years and older from the follow‐up of a population cohort in Spain. Three casual BP measurements and 24‐hour ABPM were performed under standardized conditions. Approximately 68.8% patients were hypertensive based on casual BP (≥140/90 mm Hg or current BP medication use) and 62.1% based on 24‐hour ABPM (≥130/80 mm Hg or current BP medication use) (P=.009). The proportion of patients with treatment‐eligible hypertension who met BP goals increased from 37.4% based on the casual BP target to 54.1% based on the 24‐hour BP target (absolute difference, 16.7%; P<.01). These results were consistent across alternative BP thresholds. Therefore, compared with casual BP, 24‐hour ABPM led to a reduction in the proportion of older patients recommended for hypertension treatment and a substantial increase in the proportion of those with hypertension control.     

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.     

Self‐blood pressure monitoring is associated with improved awareness,adherence, and attainment of target blood pressure goals: Prospective observational study of 7751 patients

We investigated whether self‐blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) can improve the control rate of blood pressure (BP), adherence of antihypertensive medications, and the awareness of the importance of BP control in hypertensive patients. A total of 7751 patients who visited the outpatient clinics of private and university hospitals in Korea were given automatic electronic BP monitors and were recommended to measure their BP daily at home for 3 months. Changes in office BP, attainment of target BP, adherence to taking antihypertensive drugs, and awareness of BP were compared before and after SBPM. Patients and physicians were surveyed on their perception of BP and SBPM. Mean BP significantly decreased from 142/88 to 129/80 mm Hg (P < .001), and attainment of the target BP increased from 32% to 59% (P < .001) after SBPM. Drug non‐adherence, which was defined as patient's not taking medication days per week, decreased significantly from 0.86 days to 0.53 days (P < .001). The rate of awareness of the BP goal increased from 57% to 81% (P < .001). Patients estimated that their mean BP was 125/81 mm Hg, but their actual mean BP was 142/88 mm Hg. Awareness about the importance of SBPM increased from 90% to 98%. The rate of SBPM ≥ once per week further increased, from 34% to 96%. In conclusion, SBPM is associated with reduced BP, better BP control rate, greater drug adherence, and improved perception of BP by the patients.     

The Effects of the L / N‐Type Calcium Channel Blocker (Cilnidipine) on Sympathetic Hyperactive Morning Hypertension: Results From ACHIEVE‐ONE*

The Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control and Home Blood Pressure (Morning and Evening) Lowering By N‐Channel Blocker Cilnidipine (ACHIEVE‐ONE) trial is a large‐scale clinical study on blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate (PR) in the real world with use of cilnidipine, a unique L/N‐type Ca channel blocker, possessing a suppressive action on increased sympathetic activity in patients with essential hypertension. The effects of cilnidipine on morning hypertension were examined. The authors examined 2319 patients treated with cilnidipine for 12 weeks. Clinic systolic BP (SBP) decreased by 19.6 mm Hg from 155.0 mm Hg, whereas morning SBP decreased by 17.0 mm Hg from 152.9 mm Hg after 12‐week cilnidipine treatment. Cilnidipine reduced both morning SBP and PR more markedly in patients with higher baseline morning SBP (−3.2 mm Hg and −1.3 beats per minute in the first quartile of morning SBP, −30.9 mm Hg and −3.2 beats per minute in the fourth quartile), and also reduced both morning PR and SBP more markedly in patients with higher baseline morning PR (0.6 beats per minute and −15.6 mm Hg in <70 beats per minute, and −9.7 beats per minute and −20.2 mm Hg in ≥85 beats per minute). Cilnidipine significantly reduced BP and PR in hypertensive patients at the clinic and at home, especially with higher BP and PR in the morning. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012; 00:00–00. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In recent years, it has been demonstrated that home or 24‐hour blood pressure (BP) monitoring predicts the risk of cardiovascular events. ¹ , ² , ³ Home BP measurements have been rapidly spreading because of its simple approach. Home morning hypertension is associated with a risk for chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular events. ⁴ , ⁵ In addition, an elevated pulse rate (PR) is associated with a risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. ⁶ , ⁷ Therefore, management of morning hypertension and high PR is important in preventing cardiovascular events. Cilnidipine has two actions ⁸ , ⁹ : block L‐type Ca channels in vascular smooth muscle, which exerts an antihypertensive effect similar to L‐type Ca channel blockers (eg, amlodipine), and block N‐type Ca channels at sympathetic nerve endings, which suppresses increased sympathetic activity in animal models ⁹ , ¹⁰ , ¹¹ and humans. ¹² , ¹³ , ¹⁴ In this manner, cilnidipine is an effective Ca channel blocker to treat morning hypertension characterized by increased sympathetic activity in the early morning. Amlodipine, an L‐type Ca channel blocker, reduced BP, but its PR‐lowering effect is controversial. ¹⁵ , ¹⁶ , ¹⁷ In contrast, several studies demonstrated that cilnidipine reduced not only BP but also PR. ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ PR is influenced by both sympathetic and parasympathetic activities. Increased sympathetic activity leads to high PR. We are interested in whether cilnidipine is effective on not only higher BP, but also higher PR in hypertensive patients in the real world. The Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control and Home Blood Pressure (Morning and Evening) Lowering by N‐Channel Blocker Cilnidipine (ACHIEVE‐ONE) trial is a large‐scale clinical study designed to evaluate the clinical effects of cilnidipine on BP and PR measured at the clinic, at home, and by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in patients with essential hypertension in daily medical practice. Previously, another large‐scale clinical study was reported that cilnidipine reduced BP and PR at the clinic in hypertensive patients. ¹⁸ In this study, we examined the effects of cilnidipine on home BP and PR in hypertensive patients in the real world.     

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.     

Telemonitoring of blood pressure self measurement in the OLMETEL study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring in previous uncontrolled hypertensives treated with olmesartan medoxomil in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: Patients (n = 53) with untreated, uncontrolled or insufficiently treated hypertension were selected by physicians to receive olmesartan medoxomil 10-40 mg/day for 12 weeks. Office BP values were determined by a physician at baseline and after 12 weeks' treatment; BP self-measurement (BPSM) was conducted throughout the 12-week treatment period using a TensioPhone TP2 telemonitoring device; BP values were stored and automatically downloaded to a remote service centre via standard telephone lines. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil produced statistically significant reductions from baseline in both systolic and diastolic office BP and BPSM values. In contrast to office BP, telemonitoring of BPSM allowed the early identification of responders (e.g., after 2-3 weeks' treatment). Blood pressure reduction with olmesartan medoxomil was greater for office BP than for BPSM values. Normalization of BP was achieved in 64.2% of the patients using office BP measurement compared with 36.4% using BPSM. Blood pressure self-measurement showed no significant difference between morning and evening BP measurements or between the morning : evening BP ratio at baseline and after nine weeks of olmesartan medoxomil treatment. Compliance and tolerability were good or very good in most patients. CONCLUSION: In a 'real-life' clinical practice setting, telemonitoring of BPSM was an effective technique that was partially affected by patient non-compliance. Olmesartan medoxomil provided effective and reliable BP-lowering, which was maintained throughout the 24-hour period.     

Differing Effects of Aliskiren/Amlodipine Combination and High‐Dose Amlodipine Monotherapy on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Target Organ Protection

The aim of this study was to compare an aliskiren/amlodipine combination with high‐dose amlodipine monotherapy on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and organ protection. The study was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open‐label trial in elderly essential hypertensive patients. A total of 105 patients with clinic BP (CBP) ≥140/90 mm Hg with amlodipine 5 mg were randomly allocated to aliskiren (150–300 mg)/amlodipine (5 mg) (ALI/AML group, n=53) or high‐dose amlodipine (10 mg) (h‐dAML group, n=52) and treated for 16 weeks. Each patient's CBP, ABPM, urine albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio (UACR), and brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) were measured at baseline and at the end of the study. The ALI/AML and h‐dAML groups showed similarly reduced mean 24‐hour SBP, daytime SBP, nighttime SBP, and baPWV. However, UACR reduction was significantly greater in the ALI/AML group (P=.02). ALI/AML was significantly less effective in reducing early‐morning BP (P=.002) and morning BP surge (P=.001) compared with h‐dAML.