The velocity of antihypertensive effect of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide and angiotensin II receptor blocker

The impact of clinical inertia on uncontrolled blood pressure in treated hypertension: real-world, longitudinal data from Japan

We aimed to quantify the impact of inadequate pharmacological therapy on uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) using Japanese real-world data. This retrospective cohort study used databases provided by DeSC Healthcare, Inc (Tokyo, Japan). We identified 27,652 patients with hypertension (age, 60.7 ± 9.1 years; men, 56.4%) who were not receiving antihypertensive treatment at the initial visit (pre-treatment) and were under treatment at the next visit (post-treatment). Patients were classified into the following groups by the number of antihypertensive drug classes and defined daily dose (DDD): one antihypertensive drug class with a low dose (DDD < 1.0), one antihypertensive drug class with a moderate-to-high dose (DDD ≥ 1.0), two antihypertensive drug classes with a low dose (DDD < 2.0), two antihypertensive drug classes with a moderate-to-high dose (DDD ≥ 2.0), and ≥three antihypertensive drug classes. The pre-treatment systolic/diastolic BP was 157.7 ± 15.4/94.2 ± 11.5 mmHg. Overall, 43.0% of patients had uncontrolled BP (post-treatment BP ≥ 140/ ≥ 90 mmHg). High pre-treatment BP was a strong factor for uncontrolled BP. After adjustments for covariates, including the pre-treatment mean BP, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled BP was 2.08 times higher in the one antihypertensive drug class with a low dose group than in the ≥three antihypertensive drug classes group. The preventable fraction due to Collapse

Key Words

• Blood pressure
• Clinical inertia
• Cohort study
• Epidemiology

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Male
• Humans
• Middle Aged
• Aged
• Antihypertensive Agents/adverse effects
• Blood Pressure
• Japan
• Retrospective Studies
• Hypertension/drug therapy
• Hypertension/chemically induced

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Michihiro Satoh Division of Public Health, Hygiene and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan. Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. Department of Pharmacy, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University Hospital, Sendai, Japan.
Tomoko Muroya Division of Public Health, Hygiene and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan Division of Internal Medicine, Izumi Hospital, Sendai, Japan
Takahisa Murakami Division of Public Health, Hygiene and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Division of Aging and Geriatric Dentistry, Department of Rehabilitation Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan
Taku Obara Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan
Kei Asayama Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Tohoku Institute for Management of Blood Pressure, Sendai, Japan
Takayoshi Ohkubo Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Tohoku Institute for Management of Blood Pressure, Sendai, Japan
Yutaka Imai Tohoku Institute for Management of Blood Pressure, Sendai, Japan
Hirohito Metoki Division of Public Health, Hygiene and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Tohoku Institute for Management of Blood Pressure, Sendai, Japan

Collapse

A personal history of research on hypertension From an encounter with hypertension to the development of hypertension practice based on out-of-clinic blood pressure measurements

In the 1970s, many people had severe hypertension and related cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases; however, antihypertensive treatments were not available at the time. The author encountered such conditions during the initial exposure to medicine. The author subsequently entered the field of hypertension medicine to prevent such conditions and engaged in hypertension research for more than 50 years. The author's central interest was the physiological and clinical aspects of blood pressure (BP) variability. Out-of-clinic BP measurements were the focus of clinical research. It was anticipated that self-measurement of BP at home (HBP) would improve medical practice surrounding hypertension. To establish evidence-based hypertension medicine, the Ohasama study (an epidemiology based on HBP) was conducted. The study provided firm evidence of the clinical significance of HBP and diagnostic criteria for hypertension and normotension. To establish target HBP levels for antihypertensive therapy, the Hypertension Objective treatment based on Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP) study (a prospective intervention study) was also conducted. Application of HBP measurements expanded to obstetric, clinical pharmacology, pathophysiology, and genetic studies. During these studies, crucial information on the clinical significance of BP variability (such as circadian and day-by-day variation of BP, nocturnal BP, white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension) was established. Finally, the author described the priority of HBP over clinic-measured BP for the diagnosis of hypertension in the 2014 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines. In this article, the author's history of hypertension research, from the first encounter with hypertension to the construction of guidelines on hypertension, is reviewed.

Association Between Amplitude of Seasonal Variation in Self-Measured Home Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Outcomes: HOMED-BP (Hypertension Objective Treatment Based on Measurement By Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure) Study

Background

The clinical significance of long‐term seasonal variations in self‐measured home blood pressure (BP) has not been elucidated for the cardiovascular disease prevention.

Methods and Results

Eligible 2787 patients were classified into 4 groups according to the magnitude of their seasonal variation in home BP, defined as an average of all increases in home BP from summer (July–August) to winter (January–February) combined with all decreases from winter to summer throughout the follow‐up period, namely inverse‐ (systolic/diastolic, <0/<0 mm Hg), small‐ (0–4.8/0–2.4 mm Hg), middle‐ (4.8–9.1/2.4–4.5 mm Hg), or large‐ (≥9.1/≥4.5 mm Hg) variation groups. The overall cardiovascular risks illustrated U‐shaped relationships across the groups, and hazard ratios for all cardiovascular outcomes compared with the small‐variation group were 3.07 (P=0.004) and 2.02 (P=0.041) in the inverse‐variation group and large‐variation group, respectively, based on systolic BP, and results were confirmatory for major adverse cardiovascular events. Furthermore, when the summer‐winter home BP difference was evaluated among patients who experienced titration and tapering of antihypertensive drugs depending on the season, the difference was significantly smaller in the early (September–November) than in the late (December–February) titration group (3.9/1.2 mm Hg versus 7.3/3.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) as well as in the early (March–May) than in the late (June–August) tapering group (4.4/2.1 mm Hg versus 7.1/3.4 mm Hg, P<0.001).

Conclusions

The small‐to‐middle seasonal variation in home BP (0–9.1/0–4.5 mm Hg), which may be partially attributed to earlier adjustment of antihypertensive medication, were associated with better cardiovascular outcomes.

The velocity of antihypertensive effects of seven angiotensin II receptor blockers determined by home blood pressure measurements

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and the time to attain the maximal antihypertensive effect (stabilization time) of several angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) based on home BP measurements.

METHODS

We surveyed consecutive newly diagnosed, untreated patients with hypertension who started the treatment with a mid-level dose of one of seven ARBs (losartan 50 mg, telmisartan 40 mg, candesartan 8 mg, olmesartan 20 mg, valsartan 80 mg, irbesartan 100 mg, or azilsartan 20 mg). All study participants measured home BP in the morning for at least 1 week during an untreated period and 4 weeks during the treatment period.

RESULTS

Age, the proportion of men, and baseline home BP levels did not differ significantly between groups (total n = 232; age, 62.2 years; 50.9% men; home SBP/DBP, 151.6/90.0 mmHg). Significant differences in the BP-lowering effect and the stabilization time between ARBs were observed (P ≤ 0.02). The extent of BP-lowering effects of azilsartan 20 mg was significantly greater than that of valsartan 80 mg or irbesartan 100 mg (15.3 vs. 7.9 or 8.2 mmHg, respectively P ≤ 0.03). The stabilization time of losartan for home SBP was significantly longer than that of valsartan, irbesartan, or azilsartan (22.8 vs. 7.1, 4.7, or 7.1 days, respectively, P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The maximum effect and the stabilization time differed among ARBs used at the mid-level dose in Japan. An ARB should be chosen based on its desired characteristics.

The effects of increasing calcium channel blocker dose vs. adding a diuretic to treatment regimens for patients with uncontrolled hypertension

In patients with insufficient blood pressure (BP) control, despite using a combination regimen containing an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker (CCB), whether a greater dose of CCB or adding a diuretic is more effective at lowering BP remains unclear. We conducted a multicenter randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of switching from the daily administration of a single-pill fixed-dose combination of irbesartan (100 mg) and amlodipine (5 mg) to irbesartan (100 mg) with an increased dose of amlodipine (10 mg) (HD group, n=62) or irbesartan (100 mg) and amlodipine (5 mg) with 1 mg of indapamide (D group, n=63) in patients with poorly controlled hypertension. BP measured at home was monitored by a physician using a telemonitoring system. Between the HD and D groups, no significant differences were observed in morning home BP changes (mean reduction of systolic/diastolic BP, 1.7/0.9 mmHg; 95% confidence intervals, -2.4 to 5.7/-1.4 to 3.2; P=0.19/0.37), achievement rate of target BP (45.2% vs. 42.9%, P=0.80), BP variability independent of the mean (P⩾0.74), other variability indices (P⩾0.55) and time to stabilization, which was calculated using a fitted analysis (13.1 days vs. 11.4 days, P=0.99). Although a significant increase in serum uric acid was observed in the D group (P<0.0001), neither clinically relevant abnormal laboratory test results nor critical BP changes were observed throughout the trial period. Both antihypertensive drug combination strategies were effective treatment options. Further investigation is required to determine the appropriate use of both therapies based on the various pathologies associated with hypertension.

Does Antihypertensive Drug Class Affect Day-to-Day Variability of Self-Measured Home Blood Pressure? The HOMED-BP Study

Background

Recent literature suggests that blood pressure variability (BPV) predicts outcome beyond blood pressure level (BPL) and that antihypertensive drug classes differentially influence BPV. We compared calcium channel blockers, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockade for effects on changes in self‐measured home BPL and BPV and for their prognostic significance in newly treated hypertensive patients.

Methods and Results

We enrolled 2484 patients randomly allocated to first‐line treatment with a calcium channel blocker (n=833), an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (n=821), or angiotensin receptor blockade (n=830). Home blood pressures in the morning and evening were measured for 5 days off treatment before randomization and for 5 days after 2 to 4 weeks of randomized drug treatment. We assessed BPL and BPV changes as estimated by variability independent of the mean and compared cardiovascular outcomes. Home BPL response in each group was significant (P≤0.0001) but small in the angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor group (systolic/diastolic: 4.6/2.8 mm Hg) compared with the groups treated with a calcium channel blocker (systolic/diastolic: 8.3/3.9 mm Hg) and angiotensin receptor blockade (systolic/diastolic: 8.2/4.5 mm Hg). In multivariable adjusted analyses, changes in home variability independent of the mean did not differ among the 3 drug classes (P≥0.054). Evening variability independent of the mean before treatment significantly predicted hard cardiovascular events independent of the corresponding home BPL (P≤0.022), whereas BPV did not predict any cardiovascular outcome based on the morning measurement (P≥0.056). Home BPV captured after monotherapy had no predictive power for cardiovascular outcome (P≥0.22).

Conclusions

Self‐measured home evening BPV estimated by variability independent of the mean had prognostic significance, whereas antihypertensive drug classes had no significant impact on BPV changes. Home BPL should remain the primary focus for risk stratification and treatment.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Unique identifier: C000000137.

Home monitoring of blood pressure

Home blood pressure monitoring is the self-measurement of blood pressure by patients. In the diagnosis and management of high blood pressure it is complementary to 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and clinic blood pressure measurements. Home monitoring can also help to identify white-coat and masked hypertension. Home monitoring has good reproducibility, is well tolerated and relatively inexpensive. It is superior to blood pressure taken in the clinic in predicting cardiovascular events and mortality. Twice-daily measurements are recommended, usually in the morning and evening for a minimum of five days. The threshold for defining hypertension is an average home blood pressure of 135/85 mmHg or above. Patients are engaged with their management when they monitor their own blood pressure. This results in increased adherence to therapy and lower blood pressure.

Clinical significance of home blood pressure measurements for the prevention and management of high blood pressure

1. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring (M) provides BP information at many points on any particular day during unrestricted routine daily activities, whereas home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring provides a lot of BP information obtained under fixed times and conditions over a long period of time, thus mean values of HBP provide high reproducibility, and thus an overall superiority compared with ABP.  2. HBP is at least equally or better able than ABP to predict hypertensive target organ damage and prognosis of cardiovascular disease.  3. HBPM allows for ongoing disease monitoring by patients, improves adherence to antihypertensive treatment, and can provide health-care providers with timely clinical data and direct and immediate feedback regarding diagnosis and treatment of hypertension.  4. HBPM provides BP information in relation to time; that is, BP in the morning, in the evening and at night during sleep, and it is an essential tool for the diagnosis of white-coat and masked hypertension.  5. HBPM yields minimal alerting affects and no or minimal placebo effect, and can therefore distinguish small, but significant, serial changes in BP. It is thus the most practical method for monitoring BP in the day-to-day management of hypertension. 6. The superiority of HBPM over ABPM and clinic BPM is apparent from almost all practical and clinical research perspectives.

Genome-wide response to antihypertensive medication using home blood pressure measurements: a pilot study nested within the HOMED-BP study

BACKGROUND

Patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in the HOMED-BP trial were randomly allocated to first-line treatment with a calcium channel blocker (CCB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB).

METHODS

We recruited 265 (93 for CCB, 71 for ACEI and 101 for ARB) patients who completed the genomic study. Home blood pressure was measured for 5 days off-treatment before randomization and for 5 days after 2-4 weeks of randomized drug treatment. Genotyping was performed by 500K DNA microarray chips. The blood pressure responses to the three drugs were analyzed separately as a quantitative trait. For replication of SNPs with p < 10(-4), we used the multicenter GEANE study, in which patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine.

RESULTS

SNPs in PICALM, TANC2, NUMA1 and APCDD1 were found to be associated with CCB responses and those in ABCC9 and YIPF1 were found to be associated with ARB response with replication.

CONCLUSION

Our approach, the first based on high-fidelity phenotyping by home blood pressure measurement, might be a step in moving towards the personalized treatment of hypertension.