A multicenter, 14-week study of telmisartan and ramipril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) has a circadian pattern with a morning surge that is associated with an increased risk of acute coronary and cerebrovascular events. In a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, multicenter, forced-titration study of telmisartan and ramipril, the efficacy of both drugs on mean ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP) and systolic BP (SBP) during the last 6 h of a 24-h dosing interval was evaluated. METHODS: After screening and a single-blind run-in phase, 812 adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension (defined as a mean seated DBP > or =95 mm Hg and < or =109 mm Hg and a 24-h ABPM mean DBP 7 > or = 85 mm Hg) were randomized to the open-label, 14-week, forced-titration, active-treatment phase as follows: telmisartan 40 mg/80 mg/80 mg (n = 405) or ramipril 2.5 mg/5 mg/10 mg (n = 407), once daily in the morning. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the last 6-h mean DBP and SBP at 8 and 14 weeks as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Secondary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in BP control during each of the 24-h periods and in-clinic trough cuff BP. RESULTS: Telmisartan 80 mg was superior to ramipril 5 mg and 10 mg in change from baseline in the last 6-h ABPM mean DBP and SBP at both 8 and 14 weeks (both P < .0001), respectively. At 14 weeks, the adjusted mean change from baseline in DBP for telmisartan 80 mg was -8.8 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -5.4 mm Hg (P < .0001). For SBP, the adjusted mean change from baseline for telmisartan 80 mg was -12.7 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -7.9 mm Hg (P < .0001). At 14 weeks, telmisartan 80 mg also yielded superior reductions from baseline in trough cuff BP compared with ramipril 10 mg (DBP: -11.0 mm Hg v -7.8 mm Hg, respectively; SBP: -14.3 mm Hg v -9.1 mm Hg, respectively; both P < .0001). Measures of 24-h BP control favored telmisartan 80 mg versus ramipril 10 mg (P < .0001), as did other secondary ABPM endpoints during the daytime, night-time, and morning periods. Treatment-related adverse events were uncommon; patients treated with ramipril had a higher incidence of cough than those treated with telmisartan (10.1% v 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 80 mg was consistently more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing both DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the dosing interval, a measure of the early morning period when patients are at greatest risk of life-threatening cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Telmisartan 80 mg was also more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing BP throughout the entire 24-h dosing interval. Both drugs were well tolerated.     

Is resistant hypertension really resistant?

BACKGROUND: Managing resistant hypertension is difficult and mostly involves expensive testing seeking an underlying secondary cause. This study was undertaken to determine 1) the extent of the white-coat phenomenon in patients with resistant hypertension, and 2) whether 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) or having BP recorded by a nurse instead of the referring doctor could clarify how many apparently resistant hypertensives actually have controlled BP. METHODS: This study involved 611 patients with BP > or = 140/90 mm Hg who were referred for 24-h ABPM by their specialist or general practitioner, including 277 patients who were taking no antihypertensives (group 1), 216 taking one or two antihypertensive drugs (group 2), and 118 taking at least three antihypertensives in combination (group 3). Each had BP recorded by one of two nurses before 24-h ABPM. Controlled BP was defined as awake ambulatory BP <135/85 mm Hg and the white-coat effect was the difference between the BP recorded by the referring doctor or nurse and the average awake ambulatory BP. RESULTS: Those with resistant hypertension (group 3) were older (61 years (12) v group 1: 46 years (14) and group 2: 56 (14) years; P < .001), but were of similar weight, height, and arm circumference to the other groups. Referral systolic, but not diastolic BP was higher in resistant hypertensives (mean 171/95 v 154/95 mm Hg and 164/94 mm Hg, respectively, P < .001 for systolic BP only). Twenty-eight percent of resistant hypertensives and 32% of those taking no antihypertensive drugs had normal awake ambulatory BP and the white-coat effect attributable to the referring doctor was always greater than that due to the nurse (range 16 to 26/12 to 14 mm Hg v 9 to 17/4 mm Hg, P < .001). Nurse recorded BP was highly sensitive (97%) in identifying awake hypertension but lacked specificity (57%) to replace ABPM. CONCLUSION: Our results show that approximately one in four patients with apparent resistant hypertension referred for ABPM have controlled BP and one-third of patients referred for initial evaluation of office or clinic hypertension have normal BP using ABPM, ie, white-coat hypertension. Twenty-four-hour ABPM appears an appropriate initial step before further investigating or treating patients with apparently resistant hypertension.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of azilsartan with that of candesartan cilexetil in Japanese patients with grade I-II essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind clinical study

Azilsartan is a novel angiotensin receptor blocker being developed for hypertension treatment. This 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of azilsartan (20-40 mg once daily by forced titration) and its ability to provide 24-h blood pressure (BP) control, with that of candesartan cilexetil (candesartan; 8-12 mg once daily by forced titration) in 622 Japanese patients with grade I-II essential hypertension. Efficacy was evaluated by clinic-measured sitting BP, and by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at week 14. Participants (mean age: 57 years, 61% males) had a mean baseline sitting BP of 159.8/100.4 mm Hg. The mean change from baseline in sitting diastolic BP at week 16 (primary endpoint) was -12.4 mm Hg in the azilsartan group and -9.8 mm Hg in the candesartan group, demonstrating a statistically significant greater reduction with azilsartan vs. candesartan (difference: -2.6 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.08 to -1.22 mm Hg, P=0.0003). The week 16 (secondary endpoint) mean change from baseline in sitting systolic BP was -21.8 mm Hg and -17.5 mm Hg, respectively, a significant decrease with azilsartan vs. candesartan (difference: -4.4 mm Hg, 95% CI: -6.53 to -2.20 mm Hg, P<0.0001). On ABPM, the week 14 mean changes from baseline in diastolic and systolic BP were also significantly greater with azilsartan over a 24-h period, and during the daytime, night-time and early morning. Safety and tolerability were similar among the two groups. These data demonstrate that once-daily azilsartan provides a more potent 24-h sustained antihypertensive effect than that of candesartan but with equivalent safety.     

Diagnosis of white coat hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

White coat hypertension (WCH) is common in referred hypertensive patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is not free from the white coat syndrome. We examined the use of the elevation of the first and last measurements of ABPM for diagnosis of WCH in a hypertensive population that had been referred to a hospital-based hypertension unit. Data were obtained on 1350 patients for clinic and ABPM parameters. WCH, as diagnosed by conventional clinic blood pressure (BP) measurement, was compared with a variety of alternative methods determined from ABPM. In all cases, mean daytime pressure was <135 mm Hg/85 mm Hg with an elevation of clinic BP >/=140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic. The definitions tested for this elevation were first hour mean pressure, first reading, maximum reading in first hour, last hour mean pressure, last reading, maximum reading in the last hour and maximum reading in first or last hour. Elevation of the maximum pressure in the first hour or last hour above 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic showed a high level of agreement (kappa=0.91) with classical WCH for diagnosis of the white coat syndrome. Termed ambulatory white coat hypertension, patients with this finding were older than classic white coat patients and had higher daytime (127+/-6/78+/-5 mm Hg versus 121+/-5.5/74+/-6 mm Hg, P<0.005 for systolic and diastolic) and nighttime (114+/-11/67+/-8 mm Hg versus 106+/-9/61+/-6 mm Hg, P<0.005 for systolic and diastolic) pressures. They also had a significantly greater Sokolow-Lyon index (leads V(1)+V(5), 21+/-7 mV versus 18+/-6 mV). Elevation of BP above 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic in the first or last hour of monitoring diagnoses patients with a white coat response in whom there is a higher BP profile than in patients with classic white coat response alone. We suggest, therefore, that this is a better measure of the white coat phenomenon.     

Prognosis of "masked" hypertension and "white-coat" hypertension detected by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring 10-year follow-up from the Ohasama study

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the prognosis in subjects with "white-coat" hypertension (WCHT) and "masked" hypertension (MHT), in which blood pressure (BP) is lower in clinical measurements than during ambulatory monitoring. BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of WCHT remains controversial, and little is known about MHT. METHODS: We obtained 24-h ambulatory BP and "casual" BP (i.e., obtained in clinical scenarios) values from 1,332 subjects (872 women, 460 men) > or =40 years old in a representative sample of the general population of a Japanese community. Survival and stroke morbidity were then followed up for a mean duration of 10 years. RESULTS: Composite risk of cardiovascular mortality and stroke morbidity examined using a Cox proportional hazards regression model for subjects with WCHT (casual BP > or =140/90 mm Hg, daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg; relative hazards [RH])1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 2.14) was no different from risk for subjects with sustained normal BP (casual BP <140/90 mm Hg, daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg). However, risk was significantly higher for subjects with MHT (casual BP <140/90 mm Hg, daytime BP > or =135/85 mm Hg; RH 2.13; 95% CI 1.38 to 3.29) or sustained hypertension (casual BP > or =140/90 mm Hg, daytime BP > or =135/85 mm Hg; RH 2.26; 95% CI 1.49 to 3.41) than for subjects with sustained normal BP. Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular mortality and stroke morbidity among subgroups by gender, use of antihypertensive medication, and risk factor level (all p for heterogeneity >0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional BP measurements may not identify some individuals at high or low risk, but these people may be identifiable by the use of ambulatory BP.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure for the management of antihypertensive treatment: a randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of 24-h blood pressure (BP) measurement in the management of antihypertensive therapy improves BP in patients with sustained hypertension. Patients with sustained hypertension (office BP > or =140/90 mm Hg, and 24-h systolic BP > or =130/80 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to a strategy using 24-h BP to manage antihypertensive treatment (target <130/80 mm Hg) or to a standard strategy using office BP (target <140/90 mm Hg). The primary end point was change in 24-h systolic BP at 1 year of follow-up. We included 136 patients in the primary analysis. After 1 year of follow-up, the change in 24-h systolic BP was significantly greater in the ambulatory BP group compared with the office BP group (mean difference (95% confidence interval) -3.6 (-7.0, -0.3), P=0.03). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed essentially unchanged results. The mean number of antihypertensive drugs per participant at 1 year of follow-up was 1.76+/-1.1 and 1.95+/-0.9 in the ambulatory and office BP group, respectively (P=0.049). The benefit of ambulatory BP monitoring was mainly seen in patients with previously known hypertension (mean difference -7.2 (-11.6, -2.8), P=0.002), but not in those with newly detected hypertension (mean difference 0.2 (-4.9, 5.4), P=0.93). In conclusion, using 24-h BP for the management of antihypertensive therapy in patients with sustained hypertension leads to a greater BP reduction compared with a standard treatment strategy using office BP, although fewer antihypertensive drugs were used in the ambulatory BP group.     

Efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients uncontrolled with telmisartan monotherapy.

The antihypertensive effects of a telmisartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg fixed-dose combination and telmisartan 80 mg monotherapy were compared in patients with a history of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and inadequate BP control (DBP > or = 90 mm Hg) following 8 weeks of telmisartan monotherapy. At the end of this period, 491 patients (62.9% men; mean age 55.3 years) whose DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg were double-blind randomised to once-daily telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 246) or telmisartan 80 mg (n = 245). Trough (24 h post-dose) clinic BP was measured after 4 and 8 weeks of double-blind therapy. At the end of double-blind treatment, patients receiving telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg had significant additional decrements in clinic SBP/DBP over telmisartan 80 mg of -5.7/-3.1 mm Hg (P < 0.01). Most of the additional effect occurred during the first 4 weeks of treatment. The proportion of patients with normalised BP (SBP < 140 mm Hg and DBP < 90 mm Hg) was significantly greater in the telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg group than the telmisartan 80 mg group (41.5%vs 26.1%;P < 0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar except for diarrhoea, which occurred more frequently in the telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg group, and oedema, which occurred more frequently in the telmisartan group. Our results indicate that a telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg fixed-dose combination confers significant additional BP reductions compared with continuation of telmisartan monotherapy in non-responders.     

Stroke risk in systolic and combined systolic and diastolic hypertension determined using ambulatory blood pressure. The Ohasama study

BACKGROUND: To investigate the risk of stroke in subjects with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH), and combined systolic and diastolic hypertension (SDH) in a Japanese general population, we used 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and casual-screening blood-pressure (CBP) readings. METHODS: Subtypes of hypertension were defined based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) >135 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >80 mm Hg for 24-h ABP, and SBP >140 mm Hg or DBP >90 mm Hg for CBP. We obtained 24-h ABP and CBP data for 1271 (40% male) subjects aged > or =40 years (mean age, 61 years) without a history of symptomatic stroke; their stroke-free survival was then determined. The prognostic significance of each subtype of hypertension was determined by Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: There were 113 symptomatic strokes during follow-up (mean time, 11 years). Compared with normotension, among the hypertension subtypes determined by 24-h ABP, the adjusted relative hazards (RHs) of stroke were 2.24 for ISH (P = .002) and 2.39 for SDH (P = .0004). The association was less marked among subtypes determined by CBP (RH = 1.40 and P = .13 for ISH; RH = 2.07 and P = .017 for SDH). The IDH group was excluded from the Cox analysis because both the prevalence and the number of events were low in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated systolic hypertension, as determined by 24-h ABP measurements, was associated with a high risk of stroke, similar to that found in SDH subjects; this suggests that the prognosis of hypertensive patients would be improved by focusing treatment on 24-h systolic ABP.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a nonacademic setting. Effects of age and sex.

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) are likely to eliminate the stress of visits and observer bias in office blood pressure (BP) recordings, allow consideration of the circadian variability in BP, and correlate well with target organ damage. To define the prevalence of "white coat" hypertension in a rural community to a nonacademic setting, and to assess age and sex related differences, we studied 131 patients who had more than two prior office diastolic BP measurements greater than 90 mm Hg and less than 115 mm Hg. Blood pressure was measured every 10 to 60 min for 24 h using the SpaceLabs 90207 device. Office BP readings were higher than ABPM in the group as a whole, in individual age groups, and in both sexes. The differences were more pronounced at night. Average differences between office and ambulatory BP ranged between 14.4 +/- 1.7/2.9 +/- 2.0 (ABPM at 10:00), and 33.8 +/- 2.3/22.8 +/- 1.5 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic +/- SE) (ABPM at 01:00). The nighttime drop in systolic BP was not apparent in subjects more than 65 years old. Women had a proportionately higher mean office BP than men (115.0 +/- 0.9 office v 110.2 +/- 1.3 mm Hg ABPM in women and 112.3 +/- 0.9 v 104.3 +/- 1.1 mm Hg in men) (P = .013), and the elderly did not display the relationship between ambulatory and office mean BP seen in younger subjects (r = 0.15, P = .30 v r = 0.36, P = .0004, respectively).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Long-term effect of continuous positive airway pressure on BP in patients with hypertension and sleep apnea

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the long-term effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on ambulatory BP in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and hypertension, and to identify subgroups of patients for whom CPAP could be more effective. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, long-term follow-up trial (24 months) in 55 patients with OSA and hypertension (mean CPAP use, 5.3 +/- 1.9 h/d [+/- SD]). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was measured at baseline and after intervention with CPAP on an intention-to-treat basis. In addition, the correlation between the changes in 24-h mean arterial pressure (24hMAP) and CPAP compliance, OSA severity, and baseline ABPM was assessed. RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, a significant decrease was shown only in diastolic BP (- 2.2 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 4.2 to - 0.1; p = 0.03) but not in 24hMAP or other ABPM parameters. However, a correlation between changes in 24hMAP and baseline systolic BP (r = - 0.43, p = 0.001), diastolic BP (r = - 0.38, p = 0.004), and hours of use of CPAP (r = - 0.30, p = 0.02) was observed. A significant decrease in the 24hMAP was achieved in a subgroup of patients with incompletely controlled hypertension at entry (- 4.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, - 7.9 to - 0.9 mm Hg; p = 0.01), as well as in those with CPAP compliance > 5.3 h/d (- 5.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, - 9.5 to - 1.2 mm Hg; p = 0.01). Linear regression analysis showed that baseline systolic BP and hours of CPAP were independent predictors of reductions in BP with CPAP. CONCLUSION: Long-term CPAP reduced BP modestly in the whole sample. However, patients with higher BP at entry and good CPAP compliance achieved significant reductions in BP.     

Obstructive sleep apnea and resistant hypertension: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) has been linked to resistant hypertension, but the magnitude of this association and its independence of confounding have not been established. METHODS: Case patients were 63 patients with resistant hypertension (BP >or= 140/90 mm Hg using at least three BP-lowering drugs, including a diuretic), and control subjects were 63 patients with controlled BP receiving drug treatment. The primary outcome was the frequency of OSAS (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] >or= 10 episodes per hour) determined with a portable home monitor. The comparison of AHI episodes in patients truly normotensive, truly hypertensive, and in patients with white coat or masked hypertension, based on BP determined at office and by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Case patients and control subjects were well matched for confounding factors. OSAS was present in 45 case patients (71%) and in 24 control subjects (38%) [p < 0.001]. In a logistic regression model, OSAS was strongly and independently associated with resistant hypertension (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.0 to 11.7). The AHI of case patients with normal BP in ABPM (white coat hypertension) and control subjects with abnormal BP in ABPM (masked hypertension) was intermediate between the AHI of individuals with normal and abnormal BP measures in both settings (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude and independence of the risk of OSAS for resistant hypertension strengthen the concept that OSAS is a risk factor for resistant hypertension. Comorbid OSAS should be considered in patients with resistant hypertension.     

Evaluation of Criteria to Detect Masked Hypertension

The prevalence of masked hypertension (out‐of‐clinic daytime systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) ≥135/85 mm Hg on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [ABPM] among adults with clinic SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg) is high. It is unclear who should be screened for masked hypertension. The authors derived a clinic blood pressure (CBP) index to identify populations for masked hypertension screening. Index cut points corresponding to 75% to 99% sensitivity and prehypertension were evaluated as ABPM testing criterion. In a derivation cohort (n=695), the index was clinic SBP+1.3*clinic DBP. In an external validation cohort (n=675), the sensitivity for masked hypertension using an index ≥190 mm Hg and ≥217 mm Hg and prehypertension status was 98.5%, 71.5%, and 82.5%, respectively. Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (n=11,778), the authors estimated that these thresholds would refer 118.6, 44.4, and 59.3 million US adults, respectively, to ABPM screening for masked hypertension. In conclusion, the CBP index provides a useful approach to identify candidates for masked hypertension screening using ABPM.     

Combination therapy of amlodipine/benazepril versus monotherapy of amlodipine in a practice-based setting

BACKGROUND: Community-based studies are conducted to determine the degree to which therapeutic interventions will succeed in real world settings. This large practice-based clinical trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril, compared with amlodipine monotherapy, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: Hypertensive patients currently taking amlodipine were selected based on one of two criteria: inadequate blood pressure (BP) control on amlodipine (diastolic BP [DBP] > or = 90 mm Hg; group 1), or inability to tolerate amlodipine (DBP < or = 90 mm Hg, but with edema; group 2). Eligible patients were switched from 5 or 10 mg of amlodipine to 5/10 mg or 5/20 mg of amlodipine/benazepril for 4 weeks. In group 1 (n = 6410), primary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting DBP. A secondary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting systolic BP (SBP). In group 2 (n = 1502), primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients whose edema improved during therapy with amlodipine/benazepril when compared with amlodipine monotherapy. RESULTS: In group 1, mean sitting DBP declined from 96.5 mm Hg at baseline to 84.9 mm Hg at week 4, a mean reduction of 11.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] -11.8 to -11.3 mm Hg; P < .001). From baseline to week 4, mean sitting SBP declined from 152.9 mm Hg to 137.3 mm Hg, a mean reduction of 15.6 mm Hg (95% CI -16.0 to -15.2 mm Hg; P < .001). In group 2, 85% (95% CI 83%-87%) experienced some improvement in edema compared with baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive agent amlodipine/benazepril was safe and effective for patients who experienced either inadequate BP control or edema with amlodipine monotherapy.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of night-time graded-release diltiazem versus morning amlodipine in African Americans

BACKGROUND: The effect of a once daily night-time (10 pm) graded-release diltiazem (GRD) on early morning blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and rate-pressure product (RPP) were compared with the effect of morning (8 am) amlodipine in 262 African American individuals with hypertension. METHODS: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-to-effect trial evaluated changes from baseline in BP, HR, and RPP (HR x systolic BP) by ambulatory BP monitoring during the first 4 h after awakening (diastolic BP = primary), between 6 am and 12 noon, and over a 24-h period. Patients were randomized to night-time GRD 360 mg (n = 132) or morning amlodipine 5 mg (n = 130) for 6 weeks, and were titrated to GRD 540 mg or amlodipine 10 mg after 6 weeks if clinic systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was > or = 130/85 mm Hg. RESULTS: Compared with amlodipine, GRD showed significantly greater DBP reductions of 3.5 mm Hg (P < .0049) and 3.2 mm Hg (P < .0019) during the first 4 h after awakening and between 6 am and 12 noon respectively, as well as comparable reduction for the 24-h mean DBP. The SBP reductions during the morning periods were comparable, but the reduction in the 24-h mean SBP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P < .0022) for amlodipine. Mean reductions in HR and RPP were significantly greater (P < or = .0008) for GRD during all intervals; amlodipine increased whereas diltiazem reduced HR with mean differences of 6.7 to 9.3 beats/min. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Night-time GRD was more effective than morning amlodipine in reducing early morning DBP, HR, and RPP, as well as 24-h HR and RPP in African American individuals with hypertension. Amlodipine was more effective in reducing SBP over the 24-h period.     

Influence of self-measurement of blood pressure on the responder rate in hypertensive patients treated with losartan: results of the SVATCH Study. Standard vs Automatic Treatment Control of COSAAR in Hypertension

Home measurement of blood pressure (BP) can improve compliance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the efficacy of losartan in hypertension could be enhanced by providing patients with a device for home BP measurement. In this open, randomised, prospective, multi-centre study in 244 Swiss practices, patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomised to a group receiving a home BP measuring device (OMRON) (group 2), or to a group where this device was not provided (group 1). After 8 weeks of treatment with losartan, the responder rates between subjects performing home measurement of BP were compared with those without self-measurement, whereby exclusively sphygmomanometric office BP values were considered. A total of 622 subjects completed the study. Treatment with losartan significantly reduced diastolic (DBP) and systolic BP (SBP) (P < 0.0001). Overall, the group with home BP measurement showed an increased responder rate (DBP < or =90 mm Hg) by 6.4% (59.8% vs 66.2%; 0.05 < P < 0.1). This difference was mainly due to female patients (64.1% vs 73.2%), where it reached statistical significance (P < 0.01). Pretreated patients showed a 9.0% improvement of response in the home measurement group as well (0.05 < P < 0.1). The responder rate in newly treated subjects was relatively high, reaching 79.5% (DBP < or =90 mm Hg or reduction > or =10 mm Hg DBP from baseline). However, home measurement did not significantly improve BP control in these new patients (81.4% vs 77.7%). Overall, home measurement can lead to a slight improvement of BP control. This improvement was most evident in females, reaching significance.     

The epidemiology of elevated blood pressure as an estimate for hypertension in Aydin, Turkey.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an important public health problem, with some variability of its epidemiological properties in different populations. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and to determine the hypertension awareness, treatment and control rates in Aydin, a Turkish province. METHODS: Of 1600 coincidentally selected people aged over 18 years in Aydin, 1480 (92.5%) had their blood pressure (BP) measured and answered a standard questionnaire in 1995. RESULTS: Estimates of the prevalence of hypertension and its control were computed using two different criteria to define hypertension: BP > or =140/90 mm Hg or on treatment and BP > or =160/95 mm Hg or on treatment. Overall, the estimated prevalence of hypertension was 29.6% (for BP > or =140/90 mm Hg or on treatment). Hypertension prevalence increased progressively with age, from 9% in 18- to 29-year-olds to 70.6% in those 70-79 years of age. Women had a significantly higher prevalence than men (34.1% vs 26.0% respectively). Overall, 57.9% of hypertensive individuals were aware that they had high BP, and 82.1% of aware hypertensives were being treated with antihypertensive medications, but only 19.8% of treated hypertensives were under control (systolic pressure <140 mm Hg and diastolic pressure <90 mm Hg). In addition, housewives, unemployed, and the less educated individuals had greater mean systolic and diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that hypertension is highly prevalent in Aydin, Turkey, and the detection and control of hypertension is unsatisfactory.     

Concomitant administration of terazosin and atenolol for the treatment of essential hypertension

The safety and efficacy of once-daily terazosin hydrochloride administered concomitantly with once-daily atenolol for the treatment of essential hypertension were evaluated in this double-blind, multiclinic, placebo-controlled study. After each patient received 50 mg of atenolol daily for eight weeks, patients with a supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95 to 110 mm Hg and whose supine DBP had decreased at least 5 mm Hg were randomized to receive either terazosin (plus atenolol) or placebo (plus atenolol) for ten weeks. Patients assigned to the terazosin hydrochloride treatment group received increasing dosages (1,2,5, and 10 mg daily) [corrected] of terazosin at two-week intervals until the maximum dose was reached or until the supine DBP was decreased to less than 90 mm Hg. Terazosin-treated patients (n = 43) had significant mean decreases from the baseline in supine BP (systolic/diastolic = -8.8/-8.5 mm Hg) and standing BP (-10.9/-9.5 mm Hg), whereas the decreases in BP in the placebo-treated patients (n = 49; supine, -2.3/-2.6 mm Hg; standing, -1.4/-1.3 mm Hg) were not significant. When terazosin and placebo were compared, the differences in BP were significant. Terazosin-treated patients had significantly greater decreases in mean percent change of total cholesterol (-4.8%) and low-density lipoprotein plus very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-6.3%) levels, compared with the placebo-treated patients (+0.6% and +1.1%, respectively). Concomitant administration of terazosin and atenolol to patients with essential hypertension was found to be safe and efficacious.     

Addition of spironolactone in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (ASPIRANT): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

There is currently limited data on which drug should be used to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with resistant hypertension. This study was designed to assess the effect of the addition of 25 mg of spironolactone on BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Patients with office systolic BP >140 mm Hg or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg despite treatment with at least 3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. One hundred seventeen patients were randomly assigned to receive spironolactone (n=59) or a placebo (n=58) as an add-on to their antihypertensive medication, by the method of simple randomization. Analyses were done with 111 patients (55 in the spironolactone and 56 in the placebo groups). At 8 weeks, the primary end points, a difference in mean fall of BP on daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), between the groups was -5.4 mm Hg (95%CI -10.0; -0.8) for systolic BP (P=0.024) and -1.0 mm Hg (95% CI -4.0; 2.0) for diastolic BP (P=0.358). The APBM nighttime systolic, 24-hour ABPM systolic, and office systolic BP values were significantly decreased by spironolactone (difference of -8.6, -9.8, and -6.5 mm Hg; P=0.011, 0.004, and 0.011), whereas the fall of the respective diastolic BP values was not significant (-3.0, -1.0, and -2.5 mm Hg; P=0.079, 0.405, and 0.079). The adverse events in both groups were comparable. In conclusion, spironolactone is an effective drug for lowering systolic BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension.     

Blood pressure control in a hypertension hospital clinic.

OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the prevalence of clinic blood pressure (BP) control (BP < or = 140/90 mm Hg) in a representative sample of treated hypertensive patients followed in our hypertension clinic. Second, to assess in a subgroup of these patients: (a) the proportion of BP control with both clinic blood pressure (CBP < or =140/90 mm Hg) and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (< or =132/85 mm Hg) criteria, and (b) the prevalence of echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (left ventricular mass index, LVMI>125 g/m2 in men and >110 g/m2 in women). DESIGN AND METHODS: Seven hundred consecutive hypertensive patients who attended our hypertension centre clinic during a period of 6 months and who had regularly been followed up by the same medical team were included in the study. BP was taken in the clinic by a doctor using a mercury sphygmomanometer with the participants seated. Seventy-four patients with similar demographic and clinical characteristics to the entire population of participants underwent complete echocardiographic examination and 24 h ABP monitoring. RESULTS: During follow-up, 352 of the treated patients had clinic BP < or =140/90 mm Hg, 198< or =160/95 mm Hg and 150>160/95 mm Hg, indicating that BP control was satisfactory in 50.3%, borderline in 28.3% and unsatisfactory in 21.4% of the cases. In the subgroup of 74 patients, the proportion of individuals with satisfactory clinic BP control (CBP< or =140/90 mm Hg) was higher (50.0 versus 33.6%) than with satisfactory ABP control (daytime ABP values < or =132/85 mm Hg). LVH was found in 21 of the 74 patients (28.3%): 12 of them had unsatisfactory CBP control and 19 had unsatisfactory ABP control. LVMI did not correlate with CBP values but only with ABP values (mean 24 h systolic r = 0.47, diastolic r = 0.40, P<0.001; mean daytime systolic r = 0.45, mean daytime diastolic r = 0.39, P<0.001; mean night-time systolic r = 0.38, mean night-time diastolic r = 0.38, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that hypertensive patients managed in a hypertension centre clinic have satisfactory CBP control in 50% of cases, but this rate seems to over-estimate the effective BP control during daily life. A large fraction of patients show persistence of LVH and this evidence of organ damage almost entirely concerns individuals with poor ABP control.