Comparison of effects of angiotensin II receptor blocker on morning home blood pressure and cardiorenal protection between morning administration and evening administration in hypertensive patients: the COMPATIBLE study

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. Complete 24-hour blood pressure control is the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes is the ultimate aim. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of administration-time-related effects of once-daily evening versus conventional morning dosing antihypertensive drug therapy regimens on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, total adverse events, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects, and reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register via Cochrane Register of Studies (17 June 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2022); MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (1 June 2022); Embase (1 June 2022); ClinicalTrials.gov (2 June 2022); Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD) (1978 to 2009); Chinese VIP (2009 to 7 August 2022); Chinese WANFANG DATA (2009 to 4 August 2022); China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) (2009 to 6 August 2022); Epistemonikos (3 September 2022) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in people with primary hypertension. We excluded people with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or people with white coat hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two to four review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with another review author. We performed data synthesis and analyses using Review Manager Web for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, change in 24-hour blood pressure and change in morning blood pressure. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis, fixed-effect meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs in this updated review, of which two RCTs were excluded from the meta-analyses for lack of data and number of groups not reported. The quantitative analysis included 25 RCTs with 3016 participants with primary hypertension. RCTs used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (six trials), calcium channel blockers (nine trials), angiotensin II receptor blockers (seven trials), diuretics (two trials), α-blockers (one trial), and β-blockers (one trial). Fifteen trials were parallel designed, and 10 trials were cross-over designed. Most participants were white, and only two RCTs were conducted in Asia (China) and one in Africa (South Africa). All trials excluded people with risk factors of myocardial infarction and strokes. Most trials had high risk or unclear risk of bias in at least two of several key criteria, which was most prominent in allocation concealment (selection bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials. No RCTs reported on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. There may be little to no differences in all-cause mortality (after 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (after 8 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.57; RD 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), overall adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; I² = 37%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and withdrawals due to adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks active treatment: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; I² = 0%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very limited data and the defects of the trials' designs, this systematic review did not find adequate evidence to determine which time dosing drug therapy regimen has more beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events. We have very little confidence in the evidence showing that evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs is no more or less effective than morning administration to lower 24-hour blood pressure. The conclusions should not be assumed to apply to people receiving multiple antihypertensive drug regimens.

Differences of blood pressure measured at clinic versus at home in the morning and in the evening in Europe and Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Numerous studies have indicated that there might be great differences among different populations in Europe and Asia in terms of home morning and evening blood pressure (BP). Thus, the authors performed a systematic review to determine the quantitative differences of BP measured at clinic versus at home in the morning and in the evening in Europe and Asia. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched up to October 2021. Studies that compared clinic BP with home morning and (or) home evening BP in European and Asian populations were included. A random effect model was applied to pool the differences between clinic BP and home morning/evening BP. Thirty‐five studies, for a total of 49 432 patients, were included in this meta‐analysis. Mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) values were significantly higher than home morning SBP values by 3.79 mmHg (95% CI, 2.77–4.80). The differences were much larger in Europe [(6.53 mmHg (95% CI, 4.10–8.97)] than in Asia [(2.70 mmHg (95% CI, 1.74–3.66)], and the region was a significant predictor for the differences. Mean clinic SBP values were also significantly higher than home evening SBP values by 6.59 mmHg (95% CI, 4.98–8.21). The differences were much smaller in Europe [5.85 mmHg (95% CI, 3.24–8.45)] than in Asia [7.13 mmHg (95% CI, 4.92–9.35)], while age and clinic SBP might contribute to it. Our findings showed that the difference between clinic and home morning SBP was much larger in European than Asian populations, whereas the difference between clinic and home evening SBP was the opposite. The differing characteristics of the region, ethnic, age, and clinic BP might explain the diversities.

Circadian variations in blood pressure and their implications for the administration of antihypertensive drugs: is dosing in the evening better than in the morning?

: Blood pressure (BP) follows a circadian rhythm with a physiological decrease during the night. Studies have demonstrated that nocturnal BP as well as its dipping pattern during night-time have a significant prognostic importance for mortality and the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Therefore, hypertension management guidelines recommend to ascertain that patients treated for hypertension have well controlled BP values around the clock. To improve hypertension control during the night and eventually further reduce cardiovascular events, it has been proposed by some to prescribe at least one antihypertensive medication at bedtime. In this review, we have examined the data which could support the benefits of prescribing BP-lowering drugs at bedtime. Our conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence that the administration of BP-lowering drugs in the evening provides any significant advantage in terms of quality of BP control, prevention of target organ damage or reduction of cardiovascular events. Before changing practice for unproven benefits, it would be wise to wait for the results of the ongoing trials that are addressing this issue.

Chronotherapy for reduction of cardiovascular risk

Numerous prospective studies establish that elevated asleep blood pressure (BP) constitutes a significant cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, irrespective of daytime office BP measurements or awake and 24h BP measurements. Moreover, except for a small number of studies with flawed methodology, multiple clinical trials of high consistency document significantly better BP-lowering efficacy of hypertension medication and their combinations when ingested at bedtime compared to upon awakening as is customary. Additionally, recent trials conclude bedtime hypertension chronotherapy markedly reduces CVD risk not only in the general population, but also in more vulnerable patients of advanced age, with kidney disease, diabetes, or resistant hypertension. Collectively, these results call for a new definition of true arterial hypertension and its proper diagnosis and management.

Chronotherapy for Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the emerging knowledge that circadian rhythmicity exists in every cell and all organ systems, there is increasing interest in the possible benefits of chronotherapy for many diseases. There is a well-documented 24-h pattern of blood pressure with a morning surge that may contribute to the observed morning increase in adverse cardiovascular events. Historically, antihypertensive therapy involves morning doses, usually aimed at reducing daytime blood pressure surges, but an absence of nocturnal dipping blood pressure is also associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

To more effectively reduce nocturnal blood pressure and still counteract the morning surge in blood pressure, a number of studies have examined moving one or more antihypertensives from morning to bedtime dosing. More recently, such studies of chronotherapy have studied comorbid populations including obstructive sleep apnea, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. Here, we summarize major findings from recent research in this area (2013-2017). In general, nighttime administration of antihypertensives improved overall 24-h blood pressure profiles regardless of disease comorbidity. However, inconsistencies between studies suggest a need for more prospective randomized controlled trials with sufficient statistical power. In addition, experimental studies to ascertain mechanisms by which chronotherapy is beneficial could aid drug design and guidelines for timed administration.

Persistent olmesartan-based blood pressure-lowering effects on morning hypertension in Asians: the HONEST study

Using data from the large-scale HONEST (Home blood pressure measurement with Olmesartan Naive patients to Establish Standard Target blood pressure) study, we investigated the characteristics of the effects of olmesartan-based treatment on morning hypertension in Asian hypertensive patients. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between baseline blood pressure (BP) and BP reduction after 16 weeks by linear regression analyses; determinants of BP reduction were also investigated. For both morning home BP (MHBP) and clinic BP (CBP), reduced systolic BP (SBP) after 16 weeks was associated with baseline SBP (P<0.001). The slope of the regression lines was similar for morning home SBP (MHSBP) (-0.744) and clinic SBP (-0.735). Although sex, concomitant diabetes mellitus and concomitant hepatic disease significantly influence the relationship between BP reduction and baseline BP for MHSBP, none were deemed clinically relevant. In conclusion, olmesartan-based treatment robustly reduced baseline high MHBP, similar to CBP, and the effect was associated with baseline BP but unaffected by patient background factors.

Effect of Olmesartan-Based Therapies on Therapeutic Indicators Obtained Through Out-of-Office Blood Pressure

Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) correlates more significantly with hypertension-associated cardiovascular mortality and morbidity than BP obtained in the doctor's office. Assessing ambulatory BP, either through 24-h monitoring or through protocolized self-measurement at home, is essential in diagnosing and monitoring patients with hypertension. Several ambulatory BP-derived indicators are related with cardiovascular prognosis. These include 24-h, daytime and nighttime BP measurements, BP measurements obtained through home self-measurement, dipping status, morning surge, and BP variability. The objective of this article was to review the effect of olmesartan-based antihypertensive therapy on the main risk variables obtained when assessing ambulatory BP.

Different chronotherapeutic effects of valsartan and olmesartan in non-dipper hypertensive patients during valsartan treatment at morning

This study was undertaken to evaluate the differences in chronotherapeutic effects of angiotensin-II receptor blockers, valsartan and olmesartan in hypertensive patients with non-dipper blood pressure (BP) pattern during valsartan at morning. Ninety four patients were enrolled, and 40 patients were judged to be non-dippers. In these patients, same dose of valsartan was changed to evening (Val-E, n = 12), or olmesartan (equivalent dose of valsartan) was given at morning (Olm-M, n = 13) or evening (Olm-E, n = 15) for 4 months. BP decreased during sleep and increased during waking hours in Val-E group. In Olm-M and Olm-E groups, BP decreased during sleep and waking hours. Percent reduction in BP at night-time compared to BP at waking hours significantly increased after changing the dose regimen in each group. Serum creatinine decreased and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) elevated in Olm-M and Olm-E, but not Val-E groups. Positive correlation between systolic BP (SBP) during sleep and serum creatinine, and negative correlation between SBP during sleep and eGFR were detected. These data suggest that dipper BP pattern could be obtained by chronotherapeutic approach using valsartan and olmesartan in non-dipper patients with valsartan at morning. Morning and evening olmesartan, but not evening valsartan improved renal function in these patients.

Difference in the effects of switching from candesartan to olmesartan or telmisartan to olmesartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: the COTO study

Purpose

This open-label controlled study compared the therapeutic efficacy of three representative angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes attending a hospital outpatient clinic. The primary measure in this study was morning home blood pressure (BP).

Patients and methods

Two studies were done concurrently to investigate the effects of switching from two different ARBs to olmesartan. Patients prescribed candesartan (8 mg once daily in the morning) or telmisartan (40 mg once daily in the morning) for 16 weeks were switched to olmesartan (20 mg once daily in the morning) for 16 weeks. Then, they were switched back to candesartan (CO group) or telmisartan (TO group) for another 16 weeks.

Results

Data from all patients in the CO group (n=165) and the TO group (n=152) were analyzed. Clinic and morning home BP and urinary albumin levels showed a significant decrease from baseline at 16 weeks after switching to olmesartan in both the CO and the TO group (clinic BP, morning home diastolic BP, and urinary albumin, P<0.05; morning home systolic BP, P<0.01). In contrast, clinic BP, morning home BP, and urinary albumin were significantly increased again 16 weeks after switching back to candesartan or telmisartan (clinic BP, morning home diastolic BP, and urinary albumin, P<0.05; morning home systolic BP, P<0.01). No subjects experienced an adverse reaction that required withdrawal from the study. No adverse reactions attributable to the study drugs were observed.

Conclusion

Olmesartan is a promising ARB for BP control in hypertensive type 2 diabetics.

Effect of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist olmesartan on morning home blood pressure in hypertension: HONEST study at 16 weeks

Morning home blood pressure (BP) levels are more closely associated with cardiovascular risk than clinic BP levels. However, control of morning home BP has been worse than that of clinic BP in clinical practice. We examined the effects of olmesartan-based treatment using data (n=21 341) 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 for olmesartan-naive patients with essential hypertension. After 16-week olmesartan-based treatment, the clinic and morning home systolic BP (SBP) lowered from 151.6±16.4 and 153.6±19.0 mm Hg to 135.0±13.7 and 135.5±13.7 mm Hg, respectively (P<0.0001). The achievement percentage of target morning home SBP (<135 mm Hg) in all patients, those with diabetes mellitus (DM), and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) increased from 13.5, 16.4 and 17.2% to 50.8, 47.9 and 48.8%, respectively, and the proportion of patients with well-controlled hypertension (clinic SBP<140 mm Hg and morning home SBP<135 mm Hg) increased from 7.9, 9.2 and 10.2% to 38.9, 34.5 and 36.3%, respectively. After 16-week olmesartan-based treatment, the proportion of patients with masked and white coat hypertension changed from 11.8 to 24.2% and 5.6 to 11.9%. In conclusion, both clinic and morning home BP in all, DM and CKD patients improved with 16-week olmesartan-based treatment in the ‘real world', and the results showed a sustained 24-hour BP-lowering effect of olmesartan. Decrease in clinic and home BP resulted in an increased rate of masked and white coat hypertension, and further management is needed in those patients.