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

The Option of Chronotherapy of Hypertension

The aim of the present paper is to explore the option of chronotherapy of hypertension and its effectiveness in blood pressure (BP) lowering compared with its standard daily treatment. The treatment of BP has gone through many different schemes over the years. From no treatment in the early 1930s, to step care, to multiple drug combinations, or to single daily drug combinations with 2-3 drugs, still BP is not well controlled in a significant number of patients. Recently, the role of the circadian rhythm in the treatment of hypertension has been tested by several studies comparing the evening versus the morning drug administration with no clear evidence of superiority of either mode of drug administration. However, in cases of morning surge of BP, nocturnal hypertension, and renal disease, the evening drug administration has been more effective than the morning drug administration, and thus, more preferable. In order to get a better perspective on this approach of hypertension treatment, a Medline search of the English literature was contacted between 2010 and 2023 using the terms BP control, circadian rhythm, morning drug administration, evening drug administration, and 38 pertinent papers were selected for analysis. Careful review of the selected papers showed that chronotherapy of hypertension is effective. However, the overall effectiveness of evening drug administration compared with the morning administration is not significantly more effective compared to the morning administration and more work is needed in this field.

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.

Impact of timing of antihypertensive treatment on mortality: an observational study from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Whether bedtime versus morning administration of antihypertensive therapy is beneficial on outcomes is controversial. We evaluated the risk of total and cardiovascular mortality in a very large observational cohort of treated hypertensive patients, according to the timing of their usual treatment administration (morning versus evening).

METHODS

Vital status and cause of death were obtained from death certificates of 28 406 treated hypertensive patients (mean age 62 years, 53% male individuals), enrolled in the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Registry between 2004 and 2014. Among the 28 406 patients, most (86%) received their medication exclusively in the morning; whilst 13% were treated exclusively in the evening or at bedtime. Follow-up was for a median of 9.7 years and 4345 deaths occurred, of which 1478 were cardiovascular deaths.

RESULTS

Using Cox-models adjusted for clinical confounders and 24-h SBP, and compared with patients treated in the morning (reference group), all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.93-1.09) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.91-1.19) was not significantly different in those receiving evening medication dosing. The results were consistent in all the subgroups of patients analysed.

CONCLUSION

In this very large observational study, morning versus bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medication made no difference to the subsequent risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. These findings are in accordance with results from a recent randomized controlled trial and do not support the hypothesis of a specific beneficial effect of night-time antihypertensive treatment dosing on risk of all-cause or cardiovascular death.

Statement on chronotherapy for the treatment of hypertension: consensus document from the Korean society of hypertension

Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) has been shown to have a significant predictive value for cardiovascular disease. In some cases, it has a superior predictive value for future cardiovascular outcomes than daytime BP. As efficacy of BP medications wanes during nighttime and early morning, control of nocturnal hypertension and morning hypertension can be difficult. As such, chronotherapy, the dosing of BP medication in the evening, has been an ongoing topic of interest in the field of hypertension. Some studies have shown that chronotherapy is effective in reducing nocturnal BP, improving non dipping and rising patterns to dipping patterns, and improving cardiovascular prognosis. However, criticism and concerns have been raised regarding the design of these studies, such as the Hygia study, and the implausible clinical benefits in cardiovascular outcomes considering the degree of BP lowering from bedtime dosing. Studies have shown that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that routine administration of antihypertensive medications at bedtime can improve nocturnal BP and early morning BP control. However, in some cases of uncontrolled nocturnal hypertension and morning hypertension, such as in those with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea, bedtime dosing has shown efficacy in reducing evening and early morning BP. The recently published the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study failed to demonstrate benefit of bedtime dosing in reducing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension. With issues of the Hygia study and negative results from the TIME study, it is unclear at this time whether routine bedtime dosing is beneficial for reducing cardiovascular outcomes.

Bedtime versus morning use of antihypertensives in frail continuing care residents (BedMed-Frail): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point pragmatic trial

INTRODUCTION

BedMed-Frail explores risks and benefits of switching antihypertensives from morning to bedtime in a frail population at greater risk of hypotensive adverse effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Design: Prospective parallel randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial.Participants: Hypertensive continuing care residents, in either long-term care or supportive living, who are free from glaucoma, and using ≥1 once daily antihypertensive.Setting: 16 volunteer continuing care facilities in Alberta, Canada, with eligible residents identified using electronic health claims data.Intervention: All non-opted out eligible residents are randomised centrally by the provincial health data steward to bedtime versus usual care (typically morning) administration of once daily antihypertensives. Timing changes are made (maximum one change per week) by usual care facility pharmacists.Follow-up: Via linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital, continuing care and community medical services.Primary outcome: Composite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke, or congestive heart failure.Secondary outcomes: Each primary outcome element on its own, all-cause unplanned hospitalisation or emergency department visit, non-vertebral fracture and, as assessed roughly 135 days postrandomisation, fall in the last 30 days, deteriorated cognition, urinary incontinence, decubitus skin ulceration, inappropriate or disruptive behaviour a minimum of 4 days per week, and receipt of antipsychotic medication or physical restraints in the last 7 days.Process outcome: Proportion of blood pressure medication doses taken at bedtime (broken down monthly).Primary outcome analysis: Cox-Proportional Hazards Survival Analysis.Sample size: The trial will continue until a projected 368 primary outcome events have occurred.Current status: Enrolment is ongoing with 642 randomisations to date (75% female, mean age 88 years).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

BedMed-Frail has ethical approval from the University of Alberta Health Ethics Review Board (Pro00086129) and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04054648.

Hypertension as Cardiovascular Risk Factor in Chronic Kidney Disease

Hypertension is the leading modifiable cause of premature death and hence one of the global targets of World Health Organization for prevention. Hypertension also affects the great majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both hypertension and CKD are intrinsically related, as hypertension is a strong determinant of worse renal and cardiovascular outcomes and renal function decline aggravates hypertension. This bidirectional relationship is well documented by the high prevalence of hypertension across CKD stages and the dual benefits of effective antihypertensive treatments on renal and cardiovascular risk reduction. Achieving an optimal blood pressure (BP) target is mandatory and requires several pharmacological and lifestyle measures. However, it also requires a correct diagnosis based on reliable BP measurements (eg, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, home BP), especially for populations like patients with CKD where reduced or reverse dipping patterns or masked and resistant hypertension are frequent and associated with a poor cardiovascular and renal prognosis. Even after achieving BP targets, which remain debated in CKD, the residual cardiovascular risk remains high. Current antihypertensive options have been enriched with novel agents that enable to lower the existing renal and cardiovascular risks, such as SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors and novel nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Although their beneficial effects may be driven mostly from actions beyond BP control, recent evidence underline potential improvements on abnormal 24-hour BP phenotypes such as nondipping. Other promising novelties are still to come for the management of hypertension in CKD. In the present review, we shall discuss the existing evidence of hypertension as a cardiovascular risk factor in CKD, the importance of identifying hypertension phenotypes among patients with CKD, and the traditional and novel aspects of the management of hypertensives with CKD.

Pathophysiology of the Nondipping Blood Pressure Pattern

The nondipping blood pressure (BP) pattern corresponds to a disruption in the circadian BP rhythm with an insufficient decrease in BP levels during nighttime sleep as observed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Patients with nondipping BP pattern have poorer renal and cardiovascular outcomes, independent of their average 24-hour BP levels. The pathophysiology of nondipping BP is complex and involves numerous mechanisms: perturbations of (1) the circadian rhythm, (2) the autonomic nervous system, and (3) water and sodium regulation. This review provides an outline of the pathways potentially involved in the nondipping BP profile in different conditions. A recent hypothesis is also discussed involving the role of gut microbiota in the dipping/nondipping patterns, via the fecal diet-derived short chain fatty acids.

What does the TIME study tell us about morning and evening dosing of antihypertensive medication?

Commentary on: Mackenzie IS, Rogers A, Poulter NR, et al Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening vs morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial. Lancet 2022;400:1417-25.

Early Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Non-Dipping: When Ejection Fraction is Not Enough. A Meta-Analysis of Speckle tracking Echocardiography Studies

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that a reduced nocturnal fall in blood pressure (BP) entails an increased risk of hypertensive-mediated organ damage (HMOD) and cardiovascular events. Most studies focusing on left ventricular (LV) systolic function, assessed by conventional LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in non-dippers compared to dippers failed to detect significant differences. To provide a new piece of information on LV systolic dysfunction in the non-dipping setting, we performed a meta-analysis of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) studies investigating LV global longitudinal strain (GLS), a more sensitive index of LV systolic function.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed using PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases from inception until 31 July, 2022. Full articles reporting data on LV GLS and LVEF in non-dippers and dippers were considered suitable.

RESULTS

A total of 648 non-dipper and 530 dipper individuals were included in 9 studies. LV GLS was worse in non-dipper than in their dipper counterparts (-18.4 ± 0.30 vs. -20.1 ± 0.23%, standard means difference [SMD]: 0.73 ± 0.14, confidence interval [CI]: 0.46/1.00, P < 0.0001) whereas this was not the case for LVEF (61.4 ± 0.8 and 62.0 ± 0.8%, respectively), SMD: --0.15 ± 0.09, CI: -0.32/0.03, P = 1.01). A meta-regression analysis between nighttime systolic BP and myocardial GLS showed a significant, relationship between these variables (coefficient 0.085, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that early changes in LV systolic function not detectable by conventional echocardiography in the non-dipping setting can be unmasked by STE; implementation of STE in current practice may improve the detection of HMOD of adverse prognostic significance in individuals with altered circadian BP rhythm.

Hypertension Management in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Hypertension and chronic kidney disease are closely linked. Patients with chronic kidney disease have hypertension almost universally and uncontrolled hypertension accelerates the decline in kidney function. The pathophysiology of hypertension in chronic kidney disease is complex, but is largely related to reduced nephron mass, sympathetic nervous system overactivation, involvement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, and generalized endothelial dysfunction. Consensus guidelines for blood pressure targets have adopted a blood pressure <120/80 mm Hg in native chronic kidney disease and <130/80 mm Hg in kidney transplant recipients. Guidelines also strongly advocate for renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade as the first-line therapy.

Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications: systematic review and consensus statement: International Society of Hypertension position paper endorsed by World Hypertension League and European Society of Hypertension

Antihypertensive drug therapy is one of the most efficient medical interventions for preventing disability and death globally. Most of the evidence supporting its benefits has been derived from outcome trials with morning dosing of medications. Accumulating evidence suggests an adverse prognosis associated with night-time hypertension, nondipping blood pressure (BP) profile and morning BP surge, with increased incidence of cardiovascular events during the first few morning hours. These observations provide justification for complete 24-h BP control as being the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment. Bedtime administration of antihypertensive drugs has also been proposed as a potentially more effective treatment strategy than morning administration. This Position Paper by the International Society of Hypertension reviewed the published evidence on the clinical relevance of the diurnal variation in BP and the timing of antihypertensive drug treatment, aiming to provide consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Eight published outcome hypertension studies involved bedtime dosing of antihypertensive drugs, and all had major methodological and/or other flaws and a high risk of bias in testing the impact of bedtime compared to morning treatment. Three ongoing, well designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing. Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose.

Bedtime versus morning use of antihypertensives for cardiovascular risk reduction (BedMed): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point pragmatic trial

INTRODUCTION

Sleep-time blood pressure correlates more strongly with adverse cardiovascular events than does daytime blood pressure. The BedMed trial evaluates whether bedtime antihypertensive administration, as compared with conventional morning use, reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DesignProspective randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial.ParticipantsHypertensive primary care patients using blood pressure lowering medication and free from glaucoma.SettingCommunity primary care providers in 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario) are mailing invitations to their eligible patients. Social media campaigns (Google, Facebook) are additionally running in the same provinces.InterventionConsenting participants are allocated via central randomisation to bedtime vs morning use of all antihypertensives.Follow-up(1) Telephone or email questionnaire at 1 week, 6 weeks, 6 months and every 6 months thereafter, and (2) accessing linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital and community medical services.Primary outcomeComposite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke or congestive heart failure.Secondary outcomesEach primary outcome element on its own, all-cause hospitalisation or emergency department visit, long-term care admission, non-vertebral fracture, new glaucoma diagnosis, 18-month cognitive decline from baseline (via Short Blessed Test).Select other outcomesSelf-reported nocturia burden at 6 weeks and 6 months (no, minor or major burden), 1-year self-reported overall health score (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported falls, total cost of care (acute and community over study duration) and mean sleep-time systolic blood pressure after 6 months (via 24-hour monitor in a subset of 302 sequential participants).Primary outcome analysisCox proportional hazards survival analysis.Sample sizeThe trial will continue until a projected 254 primary outcome events have occurred.Current statusEnrolment ongoing (3227 randomised to date).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

BedMed has ethics approval from six research ethics review boards and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02990663.

Dosing Time Matters? Nighttime vs. Daytime Administration of Nifedipine Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) or Amlodipine on Non-dipper Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial of NARRAS

Background: Non-dipper hypertension is often characterized by a blunted decrease of nocturnal blood pressure (BP) and is associated with increased risk of target organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events, while the optimal treatment strategy is yet to be established. This trial was designed to evaluate whether nocturnal BP reduction and arterial stiffness improvement differ from antihypertensive agents and time of administration. Methods: Young and middle-aged adults (18-65 years) with non-dipper hypertension were randomly assigned to nifedipine GITS (gastrointestinal therapeutic system) 30 mg or amlodipine besylate 5 mg once daily for 8 weeks, either taken in the morning or at night. Dose was doubled at 4-week if BP is not at goal. Twenty-four hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and arterial stiffness were evaluated before and after 8 weeks of pharmacotherapy. The primary efficacy measure was the average nighttime systolic BP reduction. Results: A total of 98 non-dipper hypertensive patients (mean age 46.3 years) were randomized during Dec, 2016 and Dec, 2020, of whom 72 (73%) patients completed all ABPM and follow-up evaluations. Nighttime systolic BP significantly reduced at 8 weeks vs. baseline with nifedipine GITS or amlodipine, irrespective of dosing at nighttime (-9.9 vs -9.9 mmHg, P > 0.05) or daytime (-11.5 vs. -10.9 mmHg, P > 0.05). No difference was seen between these two agents, when combining the data of nighttime and daytime dosing together (-10.8 vs. -10.5 mmHg, respectively, P = 0.898). Daytime, 24-h systolic BP, diastolic BP at different time and pulse wave velocity reduced significantly and comparably, and recovery of dipping rhythm were similar among groups. Conclusion: Nighttime dosing of long-acting antihypertensive preparations, nifedipine GITS or amlodipine demonstrated similar effects on nocturnal BP reduction, dipping rhythm restoration and arterial elasticity improvement in younger subjects with non-dipper hypertension. These effects were comparable with morning dosing.

Diagnosis and treatment of arterial hypertension 2021

In the last 4 years, several evidence-based, national, and international guidelines on the management of arterial hypertension have been published, mostly with concordant recommendations, but in some aspects with discordant opinions. This in-depth review takes these guidelines into account but also addresses several new data of interest. Although being somewhat obvious and simple, accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement with validated devices is the cornerstone of the diagnosis of hypertension, but out-of-office BP measurements are of crucial importance as well. Simplified antihypertensive drug treatment such as single-pill combinations enhances the adherence to medication and speeds up the process of getting into the BP target range, a goal not so far adequately respected. Recommended (single-pill) combination therapy includes diuretics as part of the first step of antihypertensive therapy, and updated analysis does not provide evidence to exclude diuretics from this first step because of the recently discussed potential risk of increasing cancer incidence. Target BP goals need to be individualized, according to comorbidities, hypertension-mediated organ damage, coexistence of cardiovascular risk factors (including age), frailty in the elderly, and individual tolerability. There are also concordant recommendations in the guidelines that an office BP between 120 and 140 mm Hg systolic and between 70 and 80 mm Hg diastolic should be achieved. The BP target of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes for hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease are not applicable for clinical practice because they heavily rely on 1 study that used a study-specific, nontransferable BP measurement technique and excluded the most common cause of chronic kidney disease, namely, diabetic nephropathy. Actual data even from a prospective trial on chronotherapy have to be disregarded, and antihypertensive medication should not be routinely dosed at bedtime. Rigorously conducted trials justify the revival of renal denervation for treatment of (at least, but not only) uncontrolled and treatment-resistant hypertension.

Characteristics and control of the 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with metabolic syndrome

Asian countries are facing an increasing prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS), which may aggravate the burden of cardiovascular diseases in this region. MetS is closely associated with ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Patients with MetS, compared to those without, had a twofold higher risk of new-onset office, home, or ambulatory hypertension. Furthermore, the risk of new-onset MetS in patients with white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension was also doubled compared to normotensives. High-risk masked hypertension and blunted nighttime BP dipping are common in patients with MetS, suggesting perfect 24-hour BP control with long-acting antihypertensive drugs and early initiation of combination therapy might be especially important for patients with MetS.