Observational study and participant-level meta-analysis on antihypertensive drug treatment-related cardiovascular risk

Cardiovascular risk in patients receiving antihypertensive drug treatment from the perspective of endothelial function

Blood-pressure-lowering therapy with antihypertensive drugs can reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension. However, patients treated with antihypertensive drugs generally have a worse prognosis than untreated individuals. Consistent with the results obtained from epidemiological studies, a clinical study showed that endothelial function was impaired more in treated patients with hypertension than in untreated individuals with the same blood pressure level, suggesting that blood-pressure-lowering therapy with currently available antihypertensive drugs cannot restore endothelial function to the level of that in untreated individuals. Several mechanisms of endothelial dysfunction in treated patients are postulated: irreversible damage to the endothelium caused by higher cumulative elevated blood pressure exposure over time; the persistence of the primary causes of hypertension even after the initiation of antihypertensive drug treatment, including an activated renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, oxidative stress, and inflammation; and higher global cardiovascular risk related not only to conventional cardiovascular risk factors but also to undetectable nonconventional risk factors. Lifestyle modifications/nonpharmacological interventions should be strongly recommended for both untreated and treated individuals with hypertension. Lifestyle modifications/nonpharmacological interventions may directly correct the primary causes of hypertension, which can improve endothelial function and consequently reduce cardiovascular risk regardless of the use or nonuse of antihypertensive drugs.

Recent status of self-measured home blood pressure in the Japanese general population: a modern database on self-measured home blood pressure (MDAS)

Despite the clinical usefulness of self-measured home blood pressure (BP), reports on the characteristics of home BP have not been sufficient and have varied due to the measurement conditions in each study. We constructed a database on self-measured home BP, which included five Japanese general populations as subdivided aggregate data that were clustered and meta-analyzed according to sex, age category, and antihypertensive drug treatment at baseline (treated and untreated). The self-measured home BPs were collected after a few minutes of rest in a sitting position: (1) the morning home BP was measured within 1 h of waking, after urination, before breakfast, and before taking antihypertensive medication (if any); and (2) the evening home BP was measured just before going to bed. The pulse rate was simultaneously measured. Eligible data from 2000 onward were obtained. The morning BP was significantly higher in treated participants than in untreated people of the same age category, and the BP difference was more marked in women. Among untreated residents, home systolic/diastolic BPs measured in the morning were higher than those measured in the evening; the differences were 5.7/5.0 mmHg in women (ranges across the cohorts, 5.3-6.8/4.7-5.4 mmHg) and 7.3/7.7 mmHg in men (ranges, 6.4-8.5/7.0-8.7 mmHg). In contrast, the home pulse rate in women and men was 2.4 (range, 1.5-3.7) and 5.6 (range, 4.6-6.6) beats per minute, respectively, higher in the evening than in the morning. We demonstrated the current status of home BP and home pulse rate in relation to sex, age, and antihypertensive treatment status in the Japanese general population. The approach by which fine-clustered aggregate statistics were collected and integrated could address practical issues raised in epidemiological research settings.

Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office

Self-measured blood pressure (BP) at home (HBP) has been commonly used in clinical practice. Although the unattended office BP (UBP), in which a patient is left alone before and during the measurement, has been investigated, the advantages of UBP over HBP or conventionally measured attended office BP obtained using automated devices (CBP) remain unclear. We performed a multicenter clinical study in Japan to compare the UBP, CBP, and HBP among 308 patients with hypertension at 3 clinics (women, 57.8%; mean age 71.8 years; under antihypertensive drug therapy, 96.4%). The patients measured HBP twice in the morning and twice in the evening for 5 days according to the Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines. Using the Omron HEM-907 cuff-oscillometric device, the UBP and CBP were measured in line with the protocol in the Systolic blood PRessure INtervention Trial (SPRINT) and in accordance with the guidelines, respectively. Correlation coefficients were ≤0.16 for the comparison of UBP versus morning and evening HBP for the systolic measurement, whereas they were approximately 0.5 (P < 0.001) for the diastolic measurement. The difference between UBP minus HBP was small on average but varied among individuals (mean ± SD for UBP minus morning HBP: 0.9 ± 17.8/-4.5 ± 10.5 mmHg; UBP minus evening HBP: 5.7 ± 17.8/-0.1 ± 11.3 mmHg). In contrast, the measurement values of CBP and UBP were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.72), but the difference between CBP minus UBP was 10.4 ± 12.0/4.2 ± 6.5 mmHg. Based on the low correlations and wide range of differences, UBP cannot be used as an alternative to HBP.

Predictive power of home blood pressure indices at baseline and during follow-up in hypertensive patients: HOMED-BP study

We compared the predictive power for a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) of four home blood pressure (BP) indices (systolic BP, diastolic BP, mean BP, and pulse pressure (PP)) obtained at baseline before treatment and during the on-treatment follow-up period in 3147 patients with essential hypertension (women: 50.1%, mean age: 59.5 years). Associations between MACE and each index were determined using Cox proportional hazard models and the likelihood ratio (LR) test. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 46 patients experienced MACE, which was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke, and non-fatal myocardial infarction. The LR test showed that systolic, diastolic, and mean BP during follow-up was more closely associated with cardiovascular risk than the corresponding indices at baseline (LR χ² for baseline versus follow-up: systolic BP, (6.0, P = 0.014) versus (11.3, P = 0.0008); diastolic BP, (0.4, P = 0.53) versus (12.4, P = 0.0004); mean BP, (3.2, P = 0.074) versus (15.0, P = 0.0001)), whereas neither PP at baseline nor that during follow-up was significantly associated with MACE risk. Among home BP indices during follow-up, mean BP further improved prediction models in which systolic or diastolic BP was already included (P ≤ 0.042), but neither systolic nor diastolic BP improved models with mean BP (P = 0.80). In addition to home systolic and diastolic BP, mean BP during follow-up period provides essential information in predicting future cardiovascular diseases, whereas its utilization should be further assessed by an intervention trial targeting mean BP levels.