Automated office and home phone-transmitted blood pressure recordings in uncontrolled hypertension treated with valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide

Changes in home versus clinic blood pressure with antihypertensive treatments: a meta-analysis

Home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring is recommended for assessing the effects of antihypertensive treatment, but it is not clear how the treatment-induced changes in HBP compare with the changes in clinic blood pressure (CBP). We searched PubMed using the terms "home or self-measured blood pressure," and selected articles in which the changes in CBP and HBP (using the upper arm oscillometric method) induced by antihypertensive drugs were presented. We performed a systematic review of 30 articles published before March 2008 that included a total of 6794 subjects. As there was significant heterogeneity in most of the outcomes, a random effects model was used for the meta-analyses. The mean changes (+/-SE) in CBP and HBP (systolic/diastolic) were -15.2+/-0.03/-10.3+/-0.03 mm Hg and -12.2+/-0.04/-8.0+/-0.04 mm Hg respectively, although there were wide varieties of differences in the reduction between HBP and CBP. The reductions in CBP were correlated with those of HBP (systolic BP; r=0.66, B=0.48, diastolic BP; r=0.71, B=0.52, P<0.001). In 7 studies that also included 24-hour BP monitoring, the reduction of HBP was greater than that of 24-hour BP in systolic (HBP; -12.6+/-0.06 mm Hg, 24-hour BP; -11.9+/-0.04 mm Hg, P<0.001). In 5 studies that included daytime and nighttime systolic BP separately, HBP decreased 15% more than daytime ambulatory BP and 30% more than nighttime ambulatory BP. In conclusion, HBP falls approximately 20% less than CBP with antihypertensive treatments. Daytime systolic BP falls 15% less and nighttime systolic BP falls 30% less than home systolic BP.

Management in general practice of hypertensive patients poorly controlled with a fixed-dose renin–angiotensin system inhibitor and diuretic combination: results from a French national survey

High rates of uncontrolled hypertensives have been reported in France as well as in other countries, partly owing to an inadequate management of hypertension by clinicians. The objectives of the study were (1) to describe the therapeutic decisions faced by general practitioners (GP) in hypertensives not controlled by fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapy with a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor and a diuretic (D) and (2) to evaluate the frequency with which ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is used in these patients. Each GP had to include five uncontrolled hypertensives on fixed-dose RAS inhibitor and D combination. A total of 2118 GPs included 9551 patients; 8643 patients were receiving at least one of the two drugs at a low dose (group 1) and the remaining 908 patients were receiving high doses of both drugs (group 2). The most common therapeutic choice was that of a new combination, either a fixed-dose in one pill or with separate preparations: 65% (n=5621) in group 1 and 56% (n=505) in group 2. An increase in dose was chosen in 28% of patients in group 1 (n=2467) and continuation of treatment without modification in 27% of patients in group 2 (n=242). A third active principle was only added in 2.5% of patients in group 1 (n=219) and 11% in group 2 (n=103). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was employed in 25% of patients (n=2413). An improvement in hypertension management should be expected from the implementation of the 2005 French guidelines. Journal of Human Hypertension (2006) 20, 407-418. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1002000; published online 30 March 2006.