Placebo does not lower ambulatory blood pressure

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Parameters Among Men With Hypogonadism Treated With Testosterone Transdermal Therapy

OBJECTIVE

Studies are needed to examine the effects of testosterone replacement therapy on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) parameters. This study assessed a testosterone transdermal system (TTS) using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.

METHODS

In a single-arm, noninferiority trial conducted at 41 US sites, 168 men (mean age: 56.2 years) with hypogonadism not receiving testosterone replacement therapy in the past 6 months were enrolled and received ≥1 study drug dose. Nightly TTS treatment was administered for 16 weeks (starting dose: 4 mg/d; min, max dose: 2, 6 mg/d) to achieve testosterone concentration of 400-930 ng/dL. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 16 in 24-hour systolic BP (SBP). Noninferiority was determined based on the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI <3.0 mmHg.

RESULTS

Sixty-two men had ≥85% study drug compliance and a valid week 16 ambulatory BP monitoring session. Mean change from baseline to week 16 in 24-hour average SBP was 3.5 mmHg (95% CI, 1.2-5.8 mmHg; n = 62). Since the upper limit of the CI was >3 mmHg, an effect of TTS could not be ruled out. Mean changes were larger at daytime vs nighttime and in subgroups of men with vs without hypertension. Cardiovascular adverse events were rare (<2%) and nonserious; no major cardiovascular adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

A meaningful effect of 16-week TTS treatment on 24-hour average SBP among men with hypogonadism could not be ruled out based on the study's noninferiority criterion. The magnitude of mean changes observed may not be clinically meaningful regarding cardiovascular events.

Time course for blood pressure lowering of beta-blockers with partial agonist activity

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. We do not know whether the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-blockers varies across the day. This review focuses on the subclass of beta-blockers with partial agonist activity (BBPAA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the degree of variation in hourly BP lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period in adults with essential hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for relevant studies up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 5; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include all randomised and non-randomised trials that assessed the hourly effect of BBPAA by ambulatory monitoring, with a minimum follow-up of three weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the included trials and extracted the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes included in the review were end-point hourly systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and heart rate (HR), measured using a 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) device.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen non-randomised baseline controlled trials of BBPAA met our inclusion criteria, but only seven studies, involving 121 participants, reported hourly ambulatory BP data that could be included in the meta-analysis. Beta-blockers studied included acebutalol, pindolol and bopindolol. We judged most studies at high or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be very low for all outcomes. We analysed and presented data by each hour post-dose. Very low-certainty evidence showed that hourly mean reduction in BP and HR visually showed an attenuation over time. Over the 24-hour period, the magnitude of SBP lowering at each hour ranged from -3.68 mmHg to -17.74 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), DBP lowering at each hour ranged from -2.27 mmHg to -9.34 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), and HR lowering at each hour ranged from -0.29 beats/min to -10.29 beats/min (4 studies, 71 participants). When comparing between three 8-hourly time intervals that correspond to day, evening, and night time hours, BBPAA was less effective at lowering BP and HR at night, than during the day and evening. However, because we judged that these outcomes were supported by very low-certainty evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and may change the conclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to draw general conclusions about the degree of variation in hourly BP-lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period, in adults with essential hypertension. Very low-certainty evidence showed that BBPAA acebutalol, pindolol, and bopindolol lowered BP more during the day and evening than at night. However, the number of studies and participants included in this review was very small, further limiting the certainty of the evidence. We need further and larger trials, with accurate recording of time of drug intake, and with reporting of standard deviation of BP and HR at each hour.

Antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily in treatment-naive patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study

BACKGROUND

Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are largely employed for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists barnidipine and amlodipine.

METHODS

This was a 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study. Consecutive treatment-naive patients with grade I or II essential hypertension (office sitting systolic blood pressure [BP] of 140-179 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. The primary end points were the effect of treatment with either barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily on office and ambulatory BP, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and markers of cardiac damage, serum procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide, and plasma amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations. Patients were assessed at enrollment, and 12 and 24 weeks. During each visit, the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) was also monitored using spontaneous reporting, patient interview, and physical examination, the relationship to study drug being determined by the investigators. Compliance with treatment was assessed at each study visit by counting returned tablets.

RESULTS

Thirty eligible patients (20 men, 10 women; mean [SD] age, 47 [12] years) were included in the study; all patients completed the 24 weeks of study treatment. Twelve weeks after randomization, 6 patients in the amlodipine group had their dose doubled to 10 mg due to inadequate BP control. Mean BP reductions at study end were not significantly different between the barnidipine and amlodipine groups (office BP, -10.3/-9.4 vs -16.6/-9.1 mm Hg; ambulatory BP, 9.4/6.4 vs 8.1/5.1 mm Hg). Reductions in LVMI and markers of cardiac damage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group reported drug-related AEs compared with those in the barnidipine group (9 [60%] vs 2 [13%]; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this small sample of treatment-naive hypertensive patients, the antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg once daily was not significantly different from that of amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily.

Placebo effect and efficacy of nebivolol in patients with hypertension not controlled with lisinopril or losartan: a phase IV, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive to achieve blood pressure (BP) control.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on nebivolol, a vasodilatory β-blocker, in patients with untreated or poorly controlled hypertension, receiving stable therapy with lisinopril (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or losartan (an angiotensin II receptor blocker).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a phase IV double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from August 2008 to March 2010 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00734630). Patients entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo-only washout phase, followed by a 3- to 4-week open-label lead-in phase (lisinopril, 10-20 mg/day, or losartan, 50-100 mg/day), and a 12-week randomized, double-blind add-on treatment phase with placebo or nebivolol (5-40 mg/day).

SETTING

This study was conducted at 76 outpatient centers in the United States.

PATIENTS

Participants were men and women aged 18-85 years with a diagnosis of primary hypertension and seated trough systolic BP (SBP) at screening in the range of 170-200 mmHg if untreated, 155-180 mmHg if taking 1 antihypertensive medication, or 140-170 mmHg if taking 2 antihypertensive medications.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was 12 weeks' treatment with nebivolol 5-40 mg/day added to a background therapy of lisinopril 10-20 mg/day or losartan 50-100 mg/day.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) at Week 12, respectively. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients were randomized to receive nebivolol (n=258) or placebo (n=233). Efficacy analyses were conducted for 256 nebivolol and 232 placebo patients (intent-to-treat population); completion rates were 88.8% and 85.8%, respectively. Mean baseline SBP/DBP values were 163.1/98.2 mmHg (nebivolol) and 162.4/96.8 mmHg (placebo). Nebivolol was associated with a non-significant mean±SD reduction in SBP (-10.1±16.9 mmHg) versus placebo (-7.3±15.9 mmHg, P=0.093) and significant mean DBP reduction (-7.8±10.1 mmHg vs -3.5±10.6 mmHg, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested a significant effect on DBP for patients receiving background losartan treatment (-8.1±9.2 mmHg vs -3.1±9.4 mmHg, P<0.001), but not for those receiving lisinopril (-7.6±10.8 mmHg vs -3.8±11.6 mmHg, P=0.076). A total of 28% nebivolol-treated and 22% placebo-treated patients reported a TEAE, the most frequent being upper respiratory tract infection (4.3% and 2.1%, respectively), bradycardia (2.7% and 0%), headache (2.3% and 2.1%), and nasopharyngitis (2.3% and 0.9%).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that nebivolol, when added to lisinopril or losartan, results in an additional BP reduction; however, only the effect on DBP reached statistical significance. A subanalysis suggests that the effect on DBP may be stronger in losartan-treated than lisinopril-treated patients. A relatively strong placebo effect may limit data interpretation. Nebivolol was well tolerated, as there was no difference in TEAEs between nebivolol and placebo.

FUNDING

This trial (NCT00734630) was funded by Forest Laboratories, Inc.

Trough-to-peak ratio, smoothness index, and circadian blood pressure profile after treatment with once-daily fixed combination of losartan 100 and hydrochlorothiazide 25 in essential hypertension

The once-daily fixed combination of losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg was evaluated for safety and efficacy in a multicenter open study by using 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension or patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite treatment with monotherapy or low-dose combination. After a 2-week washout period, 41 patients (22 men, 19 women) aged 34-74 years, showing a mean daytime blood pressure > 135/85 mm Hg, were treated with losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 for 8 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure was monitored at the end of the washout period and during the last week of treatment. A significant reduction in the average values of clinic blood pressure (from 169.9 +/- 13.5 mm Hg to 139.5 +/- 15.6 mm Hg, p < 0.001 for systolic blood pressure [SBP]; and from 102.2 +/- 7.1 mm Hg to 85.1 +/- 9.5 mm Hg, p < 0.001 for diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) was observed after treatment in the whole group of 41 patients. Likewise, average values of both 24-h SBP and 24-h DBP were significantly reduced (from 145.7 +/- 13.1 mm Hg to 128.3 +/- 14.6 mm Hg, p < 0.001 for 24-h SBP; and from 90.3 +/- 7.3 mm Hg to 79.2 +/- 8.6 mm Hg, p < 0.001 for 24-h DBP). The average lowering at peak was 20.2 +/- 11.8 mm Hg for 24-h SBP and 12.1 +/- 7.4 mm Hg for 24-h DBP, whereas the lowering at trough was 17.8 +/- 12.0 mm Hg and 10.4 +/- 8.1 mm Hg, respectively. The trough-to-peak ratio (T/P) was 0.88 for SBP and 0.86 for DBP, and the smoothness index was 7.36 for SBP and 6.37 for DBP. The response rate was 87.8% (blood pressure lowering > 5 mm Hg of either 24-h SBP or 24-h DBP average values). Among responders, T/P ratio was 0.89 for SBP and 0.87 for DBP, and the smoothness index was 8.09 for SBP and 7.15 for DBP. No side effects or changes in metabolic parameters were observed. The fixed combination of losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 was very effective and well tolerated.

Methodology to determine duration of action for antihypertensive drugs

OBJECTIVE

To review and comment on methods used to assess the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1966-June 2000) using key terms such as trough-to-peak ratio and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

An article was considered for this review if it pertained to the assessment of the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. Special attention was given to articles dealing with methodologic aspects.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Antihypertensive drugs with a long duration of action are thought to provide better therapeutic coverage against hypertensive complications compared with that of short-acting agents. Measuring blood pressure at the end of the dosing interval may be a way to assess the duration of action of a drug. However, the use of high doses of a short-acting agent to obtain sufficient effect when at trough concentrations can potentially cause dose-related adverse effects at the peak time, contributing to nonadherence to therapy and thus to adverse outcomes. To alleviate this problem, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has conceptualized the trough-to-peak (T:P) ratio. Although this arithmetic index has since been widely used to characterize the duration and safety of blood pressure control achieved by antihypertensive agents, several methodologic flaws limit its interpretation in the clinic. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a more reliable approach to assess the duration of action and outcome of antihypertensive therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methodologic approaches exist to evaluate the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. Although the T:P ratio has been suggested by the FDA, it is difficult to establish a fair comparison among various antihypertensive agents based solely on this index. Treatment evaluation based on ABPM may be preferable to those guided by T:P because ABPM is more reproducible and is now established as a predictor of cardiovascular risk.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorización Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL)

BACKGROUND

When blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy is assessed by measurements taken in a clinic setting, angiotensin II-receptor antagonists show similar efficacy to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and better tolerability. A search of MEDLINE to date, however, reveals no randomized, double-blind studies using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to compare the BP-lowering efficacy of irbesartan and enalapril in a large number of patients ( > 200) with essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared 24-hour BP reduction and BP control, as assessed by ABPM, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension treated with irbesartan or enalapril. The relative tolerability of the 2 treatments was also evaluated.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (office diastolic BP [DBP] 90-109 mm Hg or systolic BP [SBP] 140-179 mm Hg). After a 3-week, single-blind placebo washout phase, patients with a mean daytime DBP > or = 85 mm Hg, as measured by ABPM between 10 AM and 8 PM, were randomized to 12 weeks of active treatment with irbesartan or enalapril. Starting doses were 150 and 10 mg/d, respectively, with titration to 300 or 20 mg/d if clinic DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg at week 4 or 8. Based on clinic measurements, BP control was defined as a BP reading < 140/90 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in DBP of > or = 10 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders. The ABPM criterion for BP control, independent of clinic values, was achievement of a daytime BP < 130/85 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in 24-hour DBP > or = 5 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders, in dependent of clinic values.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were randomized to treatment, 115 to irbesartan and 123 to enalapril. The study population was approximately 52.0% female and 48.0% male, with a mean ( +/- SD) age of 52.7 +/- 10.6 years. The study was completed by 111 patients in the irbesartan group (dose titrated to 300 mg/d in 72.0% of patients) and 115 patients in the enalapril group (dose titrated to 20 mg/d in 76.5% of patients). BP reductions were similar in the 2 groups, both as measured in the clinic (DBP, 12.7 +/- 8.8 mm Hg irbesartan vs 12.4 +/- 7.4 mm Hg enalapril; SBP, 19.0 +/- 14.1 mm Hg vs 17.5 +/- 14.0 mm Hg) and by 24-hour ABPM (DBP, 9.4 +/- 8.5 mm Hg vs 8.8 +/- 8.5 mm Hg: SBP, 14.7 +/- 14.7 mm Hg vs 12.6 +/- 13.1 mm Hg). As assessed by ABPM, rates of BP control were 40.5% (45/111) for irbesartan and 33.9% (39/115) for enalapril, and the response rates were a respective 71.2% (79/111) and 71.3% (82/115). The overall incidence of adverse events (40.0% irbesartan, 51.2% enalapril) was not statistically different between groups, although the incidence of adverse events considered probably related to antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher with enalapril than with irbesartan (24.6% vs 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.026), essentially because of the higher incidence of cough (8.1% vs 0.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

As assessed by ABPM, irbesartan 150 to 300 mg/d was as effective in lowering BP and achieving BP control as enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d. Based on the number of treatment-related adverse events, irbesartan was better tolerated than enalapril.

Prolonged antihypertensive effect of amlodipine: a prospective double-blind randomized study

Amlodipine is a calcium antagonist with a long elimination half-life (35 to 50 h) allowing a once daily dosing in the treatment of hypertension. This randomized, double-blind study was performed to assess the residual antihypertensive effect of amlodipine 5 mg O.D. 3 days after discontinuing therapy in previously well-controlled mild to moderate hypertensive patients. Blood pressure (BP) was evaluated by conventional (OBP) and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Amlodipine 5 mg OD administered during a 6-week period, significantly reduced both OBP and ABPM mean values (p < 0.05), whereas no change in heart rate was observed. At the end of the active treatment period, adequately controlled patients were randomized either to amlodipine 5 mg OD (group A) or amlodipine for 12 days followed by a 3-day period on placebo. After this double-blind treatment phase, group P exhibited no significant increase in BP (assessed by OBP or ABPM) when compared to group A. In conclusion, the duration of action of amlodipine extends largely beyond the 24-h span, and when patients omit their treatment for 3 days BP does not significantly increase.

Clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has now become an established clinical tool. It is appropriate to take stock and assess the situation of this technique. UPDATE ON EQUIPMENT: Important improvements in equipment have occurred, with reductions in weight, in awkwardness and in noisiness of the machines, better acceptability and tolerance by the patients, and better reliability. Validation programmes have been proposed and should be referred to. Limitations of the technique persist with intermittent recording in current practice. The reproducibility is limited in the short-term while recording over 24 h is acceptable. DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS: White-coat effect (WCE) is manifested as a transient elevation in blood pressure during the medical visit The frequency of this phenomenon, the size of the effect, age, sex and level of blood pressure (BP) or the situation of occurrence (general practitioner, specialist or nurse) have been interpreted differently. It does not seem that WCE predicts cardiovascular morbidity or mortality. White-coat hypertension (WCH) is diagnosed on the evidence of abnormal clinical measures of BP and normal ABPM. The latest upper limits of normality by ABPM recommended by the JNCVI are < 135/85 mmHg while patients are awake and < 120/75 mmHg while patients are asleep. If we accept these upper limits of normality in ABPM, WCH does not appear to be a real problem as regards risk factors or end-organ effects. In terms of prognosis, data are limited. Cardiovascular morbidity seems low in WCH but identical to that of hypertensive subjects in these studies. However, further studies are needed to confirm these results. WCH does not appear to benefit from anti-hypertensive treatment. It is obvious that the lower the BP regarded as the limit of normality, the less likely the occurrence of secondary effects of metabolism, or end-organ effects or complications in those classified as hypertensive. 24 HOUR CYCLE: One of the most specific characteristics of ABPM is the possibility of being able to discover modification or alteration of the 24 h cycle of BP. Non-dippers are classically defined as those who show a reduction in BP of less than 10/5 mmHg or 10% between the day (06.00-22.00 h) and the night, or an elevation in BP. In contrast, extreme dippers are those in whom the BP reduction is greater than 20%. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM: The data remain inconclusive with regard to the existence of a consistent relationship between the lack of a nocturnal dip in blood pressure and target organ damage. As regards prognosis, it seems that an inversion of the day-night cycle is of pejorative significance. CEREBROVASCULAR SYSTEM: Almost all studies have shown that non-dippers had a significantly higher frequency of stroke than dippers. In contrast, too great a fall in nocturnal BP may be responsible for more marked cerebral ischaemia. RENAL SYSTEM: Non-dippers have a significantly elevated median urinary excretion of albumin. There is a significant correlation between the systolic BP and nocturnal diastolic BP, and urinary excretion of albumin. Various studies have confirmed the increased frequency of change in the 24 h cycle in hypertensive subjects at the stage of renal failure.

DIABETES

BP abnormalities should be considered as markers of an elevated risk in diabetic subjects but cannot be considered at present as predictive of the appearance of micro-albuminuria or other abnormalities. ABPM is thus of interest in type I or type II diabetes both in the initial assessment and in the follow-up and adaptation of treatment. PHARMACO-THERAPEUTIC USES: The introduction of ABPM has truly changed the means and possibilities of approach to the study of the effects of anti-hypertensive medications, with new possibilities of analysis such as trough-peak ratio smoothness index, etc.

Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the acute and sustained renal hemodynamic effects on hypertensive patients of 100 mg irbesartan and 20 mg enalapril each once daily.

PATIENTS

Twenty patients (aged 35-70 years) with uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and normal serum creatinine levels completed this study.

STUDY DESIGN

After random allocation to treatment (n=10 per group), administration schedule (morning or evening) was determined by further random allocation, with crossover of schedules after 6 weeks' therapy. Treatment and administration assignments were double-blind. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure was monitored before and after 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. Renal hemodynamics were determined on the first day of drug administration and 12 and 24 h after the last dose during chronic treatment.

RESULTS

Administration of each antihypertensive agent induced a renal vasodilatation with no significant change in glomerular filtration rate. However, the time course appeared to differ: irbesartan had no significant acute effect 4 h after the first dose, but during chronic administration a renal vasodilatory response was found 12 and 24 h after the dose; enalapril was effective acutely and 12 h after administration, but no residual effect was found 24 h after the dose. Both antihypertensive agents lowered mean ambulatory blood pressure effectively, with no significant difference between treatments or between administration schedules (morning versus evening).

CONCLUSIONS

Irbesartan and enalapril have comparable effects on blood pressure and renal hemodynamics in hypertensive patients with normal renal functioning. However, the time profiles of the renal effects appear to differ, which might be important for long-term renoprotective effects.

Hemodilution reduces clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in polycythemic patients

Limited information is available for humans on whether blood viscosity affects total peripheral resistance and, hence, blood pressure. Our study was aimed at assessing the effects of acute changes in blood viscosity on both clinic and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) values. In 22 normotensive and hypertensive patients with polycythemia, clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BPs were measured before and 7 to 10 days after isovolumic hemodilution; this was performed through the withdrawal of 400 to 700 mL of blood, with concomitant infusion of an equivalent volume of saline-albumin solution. Hematocrit, plasma renin activity, plasma endothelin-1, right atrial diameter (echocardiography), and blood viscosity were measured under both conditions. Plasma renin activity and right atrial diameter were used as indirect markers of blood volume changes. Plasma endothelin-1 was used to obtain information on a vasomotor substance possibly stimulated by our intervention, which could counteract vasomotor effects. Isovolumic hemodilution reduced hematocrit from 0.53+/-0.05 to 0.49+/-0.05 (P<.01). Plasma renin activity, plasma endothelin-1 and right atrial diameter were unchanged. Clinic blood pressure was reduced by hemodilution (systolic, 144.3+/-5.4 to 136.0+/-3.9 mm Hg[mean+/-SEM]; diastolic, 87.0+/-2.8 to 82.1+/-2.6 mm Hg, P<.05 for both) and a reduction was observed also for 24-hour average ABP (systolic, 133.6+/-2.9 to 129.5+/-2.7 mm Hg; diastolic, 80.0+/-2.0 to 77.3+/-1.7 mm Hg, P<.05 for both). The reduction was consistent in hypertensive patients (n = 12), whereas in normotensive patients (n = 10) it was small and not significant. Both clinic and 24-hour average heart rates were unaffected by the hemodilution. Thus, in polycythemia, reduction in blood viscosity without changing blood volume causes a significant fall in both clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BPs; this is particularly true when, as can often happen, blood pressure is elevated. This emphasizes the importance this variable may have in the determination of blood pressure and the potential therapeutic value of its correction when altered.

Assessment of antihypertensive treatment by ambulatory blood pressure

ADVANTAGES OF AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is now used widely to assess the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in daily life conditions. These 24-h measurements have a number of advantages compared to conventional sphygmomanometric readings. Although a small placebo effect is observed in the first few hours after placebo administration, 24-h average blood pressure is substantially devoid of any placebo effect. Moreover, ambulatory blood pressure is not affected by the alerting reaction usually observed during the doctor's visit. When the 24-h average value is considered, ambulatory blood pressure is more reproducible than clinic blood pressure. Finally, ambulatory blood pressure is prognostically more important than clinic blood pressure, since the end-organ damage associated with hypertension is more closely related to 24-h than to clinic blood pressure. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is therefore particularly useful when testing the efficacy of new antihypertensive agents on 24-h blood pressure. TESTING THE COMBINATION OF VERAPAMIL AND TRANDOLAPRIL: In a recent study we evaluated the efficacy of a fixed combination of verapamil and trandolapril using both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showed that the effect of the combination of verapamil and trandolapril was greater than the effect of either of the two drugs administered alone. However, the clinic blood pressure measurements failed to show any systemically greater effect with the combination versus monotherapy. This further indicates that ambulatory blood pressure is superior to conventional blood pressure in the assessment of antihypertensive drugs.

Trough-to-peak ratio and circadian blood pressure profile after treatment with once-daily extended-release diltiazem, 240 mg, in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

Once-daily diltiazem extended-release 240 mg (Lacerol-HTA Retard) was evaluated for safety, efficacy, and trough-to-peak ratio in a multicenter open study by using 24-h blood pressure (BP) monitoring in mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After a 4-week washout period, 30 patients (17 men, 13 women) aged 25-76 years, showing a mean daytime diastolic BP (DBP) >90 mm Hg, were treated with diltiazem-ER, 240 mg, given once daily for 8 weeks. Ambulatory BP monitoring was obtained at the end of a 4-week placebo run-in period and during the last week of treatment. A significant reduction of the mean values of clinical BP [161.6 +/- 16.2 to 151.2 +/- 15.6 mm Hg; p < 0.01 for systolic BP (SBP); and 101.1 +/- 4.8 to 93.3 +/- 9.2 mm Hg; p < 0.001 for DBP] was observed at the end of treatment in the group of 30 patients, with no significant changes in heart rate (77.1 +/- 9.9 to 73.1 +/- 11.1 beats/min; p = NS). Likewise, mean values of 24-h SBP, DBP, SBP-load, and DBP-load were significantly reduced. In the group of 21 responders, the average reduction at peak was -18.6 +/- 12.9 mm Hg for SBP and -14.7 +/- 9.5 mm Hg for DBP. The residual effect at trough was -12.2 +/- 14.7 and -8.1 +/- 10 mm Hg, respectively. The trough-to-peak ratio was estimated as 0.66 for SBP and 0.55 for DBP. Long-term variability expressed as the mean standard deviation of BP for the 24-h period was reduced in responders (16.2 +/- 4.3 to 14.6 +/- 2.7 mm Hg for SBP; p = 0.0395; and 12.1 +/- 2.7 to 10.7 +/- 2.5 mm Hg for DBP; p = 0.0019), although no changes were observed in the variation coefficient (10.58-10.57% for SBP and 12.88-12.87% for DBP). We conclude that once-daily diltiazem-ER, 240 mg, was effective and well tolerated. Blood pressure was controlled over the entire period of 24 h, preserving the circadian profile and reducing long-term variability in responders. The significant reduction of both BP values and long-term variability may have implications involving protection from end-organ damage in essential hypertension.

A controlled study of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on cardiovascular reactivity and ambulatory blood pressure

Cardiovascular responses to stress reactivity has been proposed as a risk factor for hypertension. In this study, we evaluated the effects of stress reduction on both laboratory cardiovascular reactivity and ambulatory blood pressure in real life on 39 normotensive male subjects who were pretested for ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular reactivity to stress using a battery of laboratory stressors. Thereafter, subjects were randomly assigned to practice either the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique or a cognitive-based stress education control (SEC) for four months. After 4 months, there was no change in cardiovascular response to stressors between the TM and control groups. However, the subjects regularly practicing TM demonstrated a significant reduction of 9 mm Hg (p < .04) in average ambulatory DBP compared to controls. Since ambulatory BP monitoring has been shown to be a better predictor of cardiovascular complications of hypertension than clinic BP, this finding may have important implications for primary prevention of CVD in normotensive subjects.

The placebo effect in cardiovascular disease

The effect of placebo on the clinical course of systemic hypertension, angina pectoris, silent myocardial ischemia, CHF, and ventricular tachyarrhythmias has been well described. In the prevention of myocardial infarction, there appears to be a direct relation between compliance with placebo treatment and favorable clinical outcomes. The safety of short-term placebo-controlled trials has now been well documented in studies of drug treatment of angina pectoris. Although the ethical basis of performing placebo-controlled trials continues to be challenged in the evaluation of drugs for treating cardiovascular disease, as long as a life-saving treatment is not being denied it remains prudent to perform placebo-controlled studies for obtaining scientific information.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in clinical trials

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is increasingly used in clinical trials. The preliminary threshold values proposed for diagnosing hypertension and adjusting treatment based on ambulatory monitoring cannot yet be widely recommended because they have not been validated in prospective studies. The trough-to-peak or surface ratios may be useful instruments for assessing the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. Trials with ambulatory monitoring just as clinical experiments based on conventional sphygmomanometry need to be properly controlled, because ambulatory blood pressure measurement is not completely devoid of a placebo effect. Ambulatory compared with conventional blood pressure measurements are characterized by higher reproducibility which makes it possible to reduce sample size in cross-over but not in parallel group trials. Finally, ambulatory monitors used in clinical research should have successfully passed one of the standardized validation protocols.

Prevalence of hypertension and rate of blood pressure control as assessed by home blood pressure measurements in a rural Japanese community, Ohasama

A cross-sectional community survey using home blood pressure measurements was performed in northern Japan to estimate the prevalence of definite hypertension, white coat hypertension and the success of blood pressure control in patients receiving antihypertensive drugs. A total of 1334 subjects (mean age +/- SD, 53.8 +/- 17.3 years; 8-91 years) participated in the screening and home blood pressure measurement program. They measured blood pressure at home at least 3 times (mean measurement frequency, 20.8 +/- 8.3 times). Of these 1334 subjects, 314 (65.1 +/- 8.9 years) were taking drugs (treated group) while 1020 (50.3 +/- 17.8 years) were not (untreated group). The WHO criteria were used to categorize screening blood pressure. Criteria for diagnosis of hypertension by home blood pressure measurements were as follows: definitely hypertensive (systolic blood pressure > or = 144 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure > or = 89 mmHg) and normotensive (104 < systolic blood pressure < or = 131 mmHg and 60 < diastolic blood pressure < or = 79 mmHg). Of the 1018 subjects identified as normotensive on screening measurements, home measurements indicated that 73 (7.2%) were hypertensive and 765 (74.7%) were normotensive or lower. Of the 112 subjects identified as hypertensive on screening measurements, home measurements showed that 42 (37.5%) were hypertensive and 30 (26.8%) were normotensive or lower. Of the 314 treated subjects, 45 (14.3%) were identified as hypertensive by screening measurements and 88 (28.0%) as hypertensive by home measurements. Only 20 (44.4%) of the former 45 subjects were also defined as definitely hypertensive by home measurements. Of the 1020 untreated subjects, 67 (6.6%) were hypertensive by screening measurements and 84 (8.2%) by home measurements. Only 22 (32.8%) of the former 67 subjects were classified as hypertensive by home measurements. Of the 67 untreated subjects identified as hypertensive by screening measurements, 20 (29.9%) were normotensive or lower by home measurements, suggesting that these subjects were "white coat" hypertensives. The study first confirmed based on the large community data that there are large discrepancies between screening (casual) blood pressure and home blood pressure measurements for recognition of hypertension and normotension. Determination of blood pressure levels by home blood pressure measurements may predict prognosis of hypertension differently from that by screening blood pressure measurements. Further prospectively study is needed to validate the prognostic value of home blood pressure measurements.

Ambulatory monitoring uncorrected for placebo overestimates long-term antihypertensive action. Systolic Hypertension in Europe (SYST-EUR) Trial Investigators

This study compares blood pressure (BP) changes during active antihypertensive treatment and placebo as assessed by conventional and ambulatory BP measurement. Older patients (> or = 60 years, n=337) with isolated systolic hypertension by conventional sphygmomanometry at the clinic were randomized to placebo or active treatment consisting of nitrendipine (10 to 40 mg/d), with the possible addition of enalapril (5 to 20 mg/d) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 to 25 mg/d). At baseline, clinic systolic/diastolic BP averaged 175/86 mm Hg and 24-hour and daytime ambulatory BPs averaged 148/80 and 154/85 mm Hg, respectively. After 13 months (median) of active treatment, clinic BP had dropped by 22.7/7.0 mm Hg and 24-hour and daytime BPs by 10.5/4.5 and 9.7/4.3 mm Hg, respectively (P<.001 for all). However, clinic (9.8/1.6 mm Hg), 24-hour (2.1/1.1 mm Hg), and daytime (2.9/1.0 mm Hg) BPs decreased also during placebo (P<.05, except for daytime diastolic BP); these decreases represented 43%/23%, 20%/24%, and 30%/23% of the corresponding BP fall during active treatment. After subtraction of placebo effects, the net BP reductions during active treatment averaged only 12.9/5.4, 8.3/3.4, and 6.8/3.2 mm Hg for clinic, 24-hour, and daytime BPs, respectively. The effect of active treatment was also subject to diurnal variation (P<.05). Changes during placebo in hourly systolic and diastolic BP means amounted to (median) 21% (range, -1% to 42%) and 25% (-3% to 72%), respectively, of the corresponding changes during active treatment. In conclusion, expressed in millimeters of mercury, the effect of antihypertensive treatment on BP is larger with conventional than with ambulatory measurement. Regardless of whether BP is measured by conventional sphygmomanometry or ambulatory monitoring, a substantial proportion of the long-term BP changes observed during active treatment may be attributed to placebo effects. Thus, ambulatory monitoring uncorrected for placebo or control observations, like conventional sphygmomanometry, overestimates BP responses in clinical trials of long duration.

Three-period crossover trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for evaluating antihypertensive therapy

A double-blind, three-period, crossover trial used 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to compare diltiazem controlled diffusion (CD) 300 mg with placebo. Patients with hypertension (N = 43) were randomly assigned to one of four crossover treatment sequences of three treatment periods each. Ambulatory blood pressure was obtained at the end of each 4-week treatment period. Diltiazem CD significantly decreased diastolic and systolic blood pressure at bihourly ambulatory blood pressure evaluations (p < 0.05, all). However, when all ambulatory blood pressure monitoring data were combined into one statistical model, blood pressure reductions were quantifiably similar to those in the overall bihourly analysis, but with a consistent 24-hour antihypertensive effect for both diastolic and systolic blood pressure relative to that with placebo (i.e., parallel blood pressure profiles) and with increased precision. Mean +/- SE changes in diastolic and systolic blood pressure across the 24-hour dosing interval were -5.6 +/- 0.4 mm Hg and -7.6 +/- 0.5 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.001, both). Therefore, by using a crossover design with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, we showed diltiazem CD to reduce blood pressure consistently throughout a 24-hour dosing interval in comparison with placebo in patients with hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the evaluation of antihypertensive treatment: additional information from a large data base

Aims of our study were i) to compare in a large number of hypertensive subjects the relative effect of antihypertensive treatment on clinic (C) blood pressure (BP) and various ambulatory (A) BP components, and ii) to determine whether antihypertensive treatment affects BP variability. In 266 mild essential hypertensive outpatients (age: 18-78 years) CBP (trough measurements) and ABP (Spacelabs 90202 or 90207) were measured after 3 to 4 weeks of wash-out and after 4 to 8 weeks of treatment with an ACE-inhibitor (n = 135) or a calcium-antagonist (n = 131). ABP recordings were analyzed to obtain average 24 h, day-time (6 a.m. to midnight) and night-time (midnight to 6 a.m.) systolic and diastolic BP values and standard deviations (BP variabilities). Treatment reduced both CBP and ABP. Treatment-induced changes in CBP showed a poor correlation with those in 24h, day- and night-time BP (r never > 0.23) and the correlation was poor also when trough ABP (mean of last 2 h) was considered. Twenty-four hour, day- and night-time BP were similarly reduced by treatment with a direct relationship between the initial BP values and the subsequent BP falls. BP standard deviations were also reduced by treatment in relation to the pretreatment values but the overall reduction was small, limited to the day-time and proportional or less than proportional to the reduction in mean values, with no changes or an increase in variation coefficients. The effects of ACE-inhibitor and calcium-antagonist treatments were superimposable. Our results from a large data base show that antihypertensive treatment effectively reduces all ABP components. The reduction cannot be predicted by the concomitant fall in CBP but it relates to the initial ABP values. Treatment has a limited effect on BP variability, this being the case both for ACE-inhibitors and calcium-antagonists.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Non-invasive measurement of blood pressure in ambulatory humans began in the 1960s. Ambulatory devices have been modified over the years and are now pocket-sized, with almost noiseless pumps. Their accuracy must be validated by independent laboratories using a standardised protocol. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring offers considerable advantages over conventional measurement, including avoidance of error associated with conventional measurement, elimination of white-coat effect and the provision of a series of blood pressure readings over the time period rather than a one-off measurement. In clinical practice, 24-hr monitoring provides valuable assistance in both the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, in particular, in the selection of drug and dosage regimen. In the research setting, 24-hr monitoring plays an important role in establishing dose-response relationships and the duration of action of new drugs. It also has a role in the design of antihypertensive trials by ensuring that those with white-coat hypertension are excluded and by reducing the number of subjects necessary for recruitment. Although 24-hr ambulatory blood pressure is a better predictor of target organ damage, definitive evidence as to whether it is a better predictor of prognosis in hypertension awaits the results of longitudinal studies, which are now underway.

"White coat" hypertension and alerting reaction in elderly and very elderly hypertensive patients

"White coat" hypertension can be demonstrated in 20-25% of younger patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. In a population of 50 untreated hypertensive patients > or = 70 years (mean age 79 +/- 6 years, office blood pressure > or = 160 mmHg systolic and > or = 95 mmHg diastolic) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, ECG and echocardiography were performed to assess the frequency of "white coat" hypertension and the alerting reaction ("white coat" effect). "White coat" hypertension was diagnosed, if mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure was < or = 146/87 mmHg (taken as upper "normal" limit), "definite" hypertension, if > 146/87 mmHg. Nine patients (18%) were classified as "white coat", 28(56%) as "definite" hypertensives, 13(26%) as an "intermediate" group. There were no differences in gender, weight, concomitant diseases, pre-study treatment, and systolic or diastolic left ventricular function between the groups. Patients with "white coat" hypertension showed lower office blood pressure (178 +/- 13/98 +/- 3 vs 201 +/- 19/104 +/- 7 mmHg; p < 0.004), lower left ventricular mass index (131 +/- 9 vs 139 +/- 26 g/m2, p < 0.5), no left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-criteria; p < 0.05), a more pronounced alerting reaction (39 +/- 13/22 +/- 5 vs 27 +/- 17/8 +/- 9; p < 0.01) and no correlation between office blood pressure and left ventricular mass compared to the "definite" hypertension group. The total group showed an average alerting reaction of 30 +/- 19/12 +/- 8 mmHg. It is concluded that "white coat" hypertension and an alerting reaction can be demonstrated in untreated elderly and very elderly hypertensive patients. Patients with "white coat" hypertension are characterized by a milder degree of hypertension, less cardiac target organ damage and a more pronounced alerting reaction. The prognostic significance of "white coat" hypertension in the elderly needs to be reevaluated in a larger population.

A clinical trial evaluating the 24-hour effects of bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5 mg/6.25 mg combination in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

This study used 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to investigate the effectiveness of a novel low-dose combination of bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Thirty-six patients with stable mild to moderate hypertension (sitting diastolic BP 95-114 mmHg) after a placebo run-in phase received oral bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5 mg/6.25 mg once daily for 4 weeks in a single-blind regimen. At office visits, BP and pulse were measured with statistically significant reductions (p < 0.01) recorded after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Twenty-four-h ambulatory BP monitoring at the completion of therapy revealed significant reductions (p < 0.01) in both systolic and diastolic 24-h, daytime, and nighttime BP, compared with the end of the placebo treatment phase. Systolic and diastolic load were also reduced (p < 0.01). The combination was well tolerated, and overall quality-of-life questionnaire scores indicated an improvement after bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide therapy (p = 0.02). No clinically significant changes from baseline in laboratory parameters were observed; in particular, serum potassium was unchanged. This is the first study to demonstrate the 24-h effectiveness of the bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5 mg/6.25 mg combination, using 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. In addition, antihypertensive therapy with low doses of bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide in combination may improve tolerability.

Comparison of repeated measurement of ambulatory and clinic blood pressure readings in isolated systolic hypertension

Repeated clinic blood pressure measurement was compared with non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in 10 elderly subjects with persistent isolated systolic hypertension and 11 normotensive controls. Mean clinic blood pressures +/- Standard Deviation (SD), at visit 1 were 165/81 +/- 12/7 mmHg and 136/87 +/- 14/10 mmHg respectively. Subjects were assessed on three subsequent occasions at weekly intervals. None were receiving antihypertensive or vasoactive medication. Clinical systolic and diastolic blood pressures were consistently higher than the corresponding mean daytime ambulatory blood pressures in both clinical groups at each of the visits. The difference was greater between the systolic pressures than between the diastolic pressures and these differences in systolic pressures were greater in the isolated systolic hypertensives (26 +/- 5 mmHg) than in the normotensives (7 +/- 18 mmHg). Daytime ambulatory readings aggregated from all four visits were normally distributed for both blood pressure components in both clinical groups. In the isolated systolic hypertension group the clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements corresponded to the 93rd and 85th percentiles of the ambulatory pressures respectively whereas in the normotensives the equivalent percentiles were 69 and 78. These results suggest a pressor response may largely account for the elevated systolic blood pressure seen in elderly subjects with sustained isolated systolic hypertension based on clinic readings.

The role of ambulatory monitoring of the blood pressure for assessment of antihypertensive agents

For many decades, the casual blood pressure (BP) has been the standard for assessing BP response to antihypertensive agents in clinical trials. Noninvasive ambulatory BP technology has improved vastly in the last 15 years and has been increasingly used in dose-response studies as well as efficacy trials. Through these studies we have learned that casual BP may not be representative of the average daily blood pressure, that it may be quite susceptible to observer bias, and that it may result in inaccurate calculation of the trough-to-peak ratio of an antihypertensive drug. Perhaps more importantly is that a large body of data now supports the superiority of average daily BP over that of the casual or clinic BP in predicting several indexes of hypertensive target organ damage. Thus, use of the ambulatory BP technique in antihypertensive trials yields BP data that are far less susceptible to improper diagnosis and are representative of the hypertensive burden that causes vascular disease.

Is isolated systolic hypertension a 'white coat' phenomenon in the elderly?

1. Repeated clinic blood pressure measurement was compared with non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring in 10 elderly subjects with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) and 11 normotensive controls (NT). 2. Subjects were assessed on four occasions at weekly intervals. None was receiving antihypertensive or vasoactive medication. 3. Mean clinic blood pressure was consistently higher than mean daytime ABP in both clinical groups. This effect was greater for systolic (SBP) than diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and in the ISH group compared with the NT group. The reproducibility of the clinic minus ABP difference was high in both groups; the mean +/- s.d. of the differences was 26 +/- 15/9 +/- 2 mmHg in the ISH group and 7 +/- 18/8 +/- 9 mmHg in the controls. 4. ABP readings were normally distributed for both SBP and DBP in both groups. In the ISH group, the frequency distribution of SBP readings was shifted to the right whilst the distribution of DBP readings overlapped that of the NT subjects. 5. These results suggest a pressor response may largely account for the elevated SBP seen in elderly subjects with sustained ISH based on casual readings.

Utilizing ambulatory blood pressure recordings to evaluate antihypertensive drug therapy

Until recently, the efficacy and pharmacodynamics of antihypertensive agents were assessed by resting blood pressure measurements in the doctor's office or a research clinic. The limitations of the office or clinic blood pressure measurement include the lack of representation (from recording only 1 point of time in the dosing schedule), the effects of the doctor's office on the patient's blood pressure, and, perhaps more relevant, observer bias. Ambulatory monitoring of the blood pressure has gained worldwide acceptance as an alternative method to assess antihypertensive drug efficacy and the time-effect relation of a drug. The ambulatory monitoring devices have been refined and are smaller, more precise, and more reliable than earlier recording models. Although there are no reference standards for analysis of ambulatory blood pressure data, international consensus groups are presently addressing this problem. Key roles for ambulatory blood pressure recordings in clinical trials of antihypertensive agents now include determination of the entry criteria for patients, improving the assessment of peak/trough pharmacodynamics in the patient's own environment (including nocturnal/sleep readings), and evaluating efficacy through calculation of the hypertensive burden, or blood pressure load.

Nitrendipine 20 mg once daily versus nicardipine slow release 40 mg twice daily in mild essential hypertension: evaluation by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

The extent and duration of the blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of 20 mg nitrendipine (NIT) once daily and 40 mg nicardipine slow release (NIC) twice daily were compared in 12 men (aged 39-55 years) with mild essential hypertension according to a randomized, cross over study. Twenty-four-hour non invasive ambulatory BP monitoring (Spacelabs 5200) was performed at the end of a 2-week placebo run-in and after 4 weeks of each active treatment; automatic BP measurements were programmed at 15-min intervals. Both treatments significantly (p less than .01) reduced mean 24-hour and daytime systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP, but had different effects on daytime BP profiles. NIT decreased SBP and DBP (p less than .05) in 5 out of 8 two-hour subperiods (from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), followed by a loss of effect; NIC reduced SBP and DBP (p less than .05) in 7 out of 8 two-hour subperiods (from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.). During the night-time, NIT reduced mean SBP (p less than .05) and NIC both mean SBP and DBP values (p less than .05; p less than .05 vs NIT for SBP). Heart rate was not affected by either treatment. Thus, after short-term treatment in mild essential hypertensives nitrendipine once daily was not as effective as nicardipine slow release twice daily in reducing blood pressure throughout the 24 hours.

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure profile of a new slow-release formulation of diltiazem in mild to moderate hypertension

Twelve patients with a mild to moderate essential hypertension were included in a double-blind, balanced, randomized placebo-controlled cross-over study to assess the efficacy and duration of action of a new slow-release formulation of diltiazem (300 mg) given once daily for 3 weeks. All office blood pressure measurements were done 24 hours after drug intake. In order to improve the accuracy of the trial, 24-hours non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (Spacelabs 90207 system) were performed as well. Diltiazem significantly lowered supine and standing systolic and diastolic office blood pressure (by 16.9/12.7 mmHg and by 17.3/13.8 mmHg, respectively), without changing office heart rate. Diltiazem also significantly lowered ambulatory blood pressure measured over 24 hours, as well as ambulatory heart rate. The blood pressure lowering effect was most pronounced during the daytime period and did not reach statistical significance during the sleeping hours. The treatment was well tolerated, and there were no significant side effects. The results confirm the antihypertensive efficacy of diltiazem LP 300 mg once daily during the daytime and during the early morning blood pressure rise, without inducing nocturnal hypotension.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the evaluation of drug efficacy

Conventional clinic measurement of blood pressure is influenced by many factors that make the technique unsuitable for the assessment of antihypertensive drug efficacy. The major drawback of conventional measurement is that it cannot indicate the duration of drug effect or the influence of antihypertensive drugs on nocturnal blood pressure. Noninvasive 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement has a number of advantages over conventional measurement: it provides a profile of blood pressure over the 24-hour period; it detects white coat responders; it is free of regression to the mean and the placebo response, thereby making it possible to consider efficacy studies which need not have a placebo phase; it enables considerably more observations than is possible with clinic measurement by increasing the power of studies, which may reduce significantly the numbers of patients needed for antihypertensive drug studies. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement offers the opportunity to study antihypertensive drugs in fewer patients with greater accuracy than is possible with conventional clinic measurement and should be a mandatory requirement for such studies.