Home blood pressure measurement for hypertension management in the real world: Do not just measure, but share with your physician

IntroductionStudies of the effectiveness of home blood pressure (BP) measurement on the treatment of hypertension in the real world are sparse, and the results are controversial. There is an efficacy-effectiveness gap in the treatment of hypertension using home BP measurements. We aimed to investigate the effect of reporting home BP to physicians on ambulatory BP control as a factor contributing to the efficacy-effectiveness gap in treating patients with hypertension.MethodsWe recruited patients ≥20 years of age taking antihypertensive drugs. Office and 24-h ambulatory BP were measured. A questionnaire to the measurement of home BP was conducted. Participants were divided into an HBPM(−) group, home BP was not measured (n = 467); HBPM(+)-R(−) group, home BP was measured but not reported (n = 81); and HBPM(+)-R(+) group, home BP was measured and reported (n = 125).ResultsThe HBPM(+)-R(+) group had significantly lower office systolic BP (SBP, p = 0.035), 24-h SBP (p = 0.009), and daytime SBP (p = 0.016) than the HBPM(−) group, and lower nighttime SBP (p = 0.005) and diastolic BP (DBP, p = 0.008) than the HBPM(+)-R(−) group. In the multivariate analysis, the differences in 24-h SBP, daytime SBP, and nighttime DBP remained significant. There was a significant difference between groups in the target achievement rate of 24-h SBP (p = 0.046), nighttime SBP (p = 0.021), and nighttime DBP (p = 0.023). The nighttime SBP and DBP target achievement rates in the HBPM(+)-R(+) group were higher than those in the HBPM(+)-R(−) group (p = 0.006 and 0.010, respectively). Among patients measuring home BP, the adjusted odds ratio for 24-h and nighttime BP target achievement in the HBPM(+)-R(+) group were 2.233 and 3.658, respectively.ConclusionHome BP measurements should be reported to the treating physician to effectively manage hypertension.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03868384

The Inflammatory Response and Cardiac Repair After Myocardial Infarction

One of the most important therapeutic targets of current cardiology practice is to determine optimal strategies for the minimization of myocardial necrosis and optimization of cardiac repair following an acute myocardial infarction. Myocardial necrosis after acute myocardial infarction induces complement activation and free radical generation, triggering a cytokine cascade initiated by tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) release. When reperfusion of the infarcted area is initiated, intense inflammation follows. Chemokines, cytokines and the complement system play an important role in recruiting neutrophils in the ischemic and reperfused myocardium. Cytokines promote adhesive interactions between leukocytes and endothelial cells, resulting in transmigration of inflammatory cells into the site of injury. The recruited neutrophils have potent cytotoxic effects through the release of proteolytic enzymes, and they interact with adhesion molecules on cardiomyocytes. In spite of the potential injury, reperfusion enhances cardiac repair; this may be related to the inflammatory response. Monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1 is upregulated in reperfused myocardium and can induce monocyte recruitment in the infarcted area. Monocyte subsets play a role in phagocytosis of dead cardiomyocytes and in granulation tissue formation. In addition, the transforming growth factor (TGF)-β plays a crucial role in cardiac repair by suppressing inflammation. Resolution of inflammatory infiltration, containment of inflammation and the reparative response affecting the infarcted area are essential for optimal infarct healing. Here, we review the current literature on the inflammatory response and cardiac repair after myocardial infarction

Fimasartan versus perindopril with and without diuretics in the treatment of elderly patients with essential hypertension (Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects (FITNESS)): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, even in the elderly. Fimasartan is a new non-peptide angiotensin II receptor blocker with a selective type I receptor blocking effect. The objective of this study is to confirm the safety and the non-inferiority of the blood pressure–lowering effect of fimasartan compared with those of perindopril, which has been proven safe and effective in elderly patients with hypertension. Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two-parallel group, optional-titration, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of fimasartan and perindopril arginine. The study population consists of individuals 70 years old or older with essential hypertension. The primary outcome will be a change in sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline after the administration of the investigational product for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes will be a change in sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline and changes in sitting systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure from baseline after the administration of the investigational product for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. The sample size will be 119 subjects for each group to confer enough power to test for the primary outcome. Discussion Research to confirm the efficacy and safety of a new medicine compared with those of previously proven anti-hypertensive drugs is beneficial to guide physicians in the selection of therapeutic agents. If it is confirmed that the new drug is not inferior to the existing drug, the drug will be considered as an option in the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555, registered on July 25, 2017.The study is funded by Boryung Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The company was involved in all stages of the study conduct and design. Boryung also took responsibility for all costs associated with the development and publishing of the manuscript

MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on office BP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study: a randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION: Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) carries an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications and can be identified through combined use of office (O) and ambulatory (A) blood pressure (BP) monitoring (M) in treated patients. However, it is still debated whether the information carried by ABPM should be considered for MUCH management. Aim of the MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on OBP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study is to assess the impact on outcome of MUCH management based on OBPM or ABPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MASTER is a 4-year prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint investigation. A total of 1240 treated hypertensive patients from about 40 secondary care clinical centres worldwide will be included -upon confirming presence of MUCH (repeated on treatment OBP <140/90 mm Hg, and at least one of the following: daytime ABP ≥135/85 mm Hg; night-time ABP ≥120/70 mm Hg; 24 hour ABP ≥130/80 mm Hg), and will be randomised to a management strategy based on OBPM (group 1) or on ABPM (group 2). Patients in group 1 will have OBP measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months and taken as a guide for treatment; ABPM will be performed at randomisation and at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months but will not be used to take treatment decisions. Patients randomised to group 2 will have ABPM performed at randomisation and all scheduled visits as a guide to antihypertensive treatment. The effects of MUCH management strategy based on ABPM or on OBPM on CV and renal intermediate outcomes (changing left ventricular mass and microalbuminuria, coprimary outcomes) at 1 year and on CV events at 4 years and on changes in BP-related variables will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: MASTER study protocol has received approval by the ethical review board of Istituto Auxologico Italiano. The procedures set out in this protocol are in accordance with principles of Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Results will be published in accordance with the CONSORT statement in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02804074; Pre-results

Characteristics of Individuals with Disagreement between Home and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements for the Diagnosis of Hypertension

Home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements are recommended for the diagnosis of hypertension. However, the clinical characteristics of individuals showing a diagnostic disagreement between their home and ambulatory BP measurements are unclear. Of the 470 individuals who were not on antihypertensive drug treatment with a BP &ge;140/90 mmHg at an outpatient clinic, 399 who had valid office, home, and ambulatory BP results were included. Hypertension was diagnosed based on an average home BP &ge;135/85 mmHg and/or an average daytime ambulatory BP &ge;135/85 mmHg. The participants were divided into three groups: Agree-NT (home and ambulatory BP normotension), Disagree (home BP normotension and ambulatory BP hypertension, or home BP normotension and ambulatory BP hypertension), and Agree-HT (home and ambulatory BP hypertension). Eighty-four individuals (21.1%) were classified as the Disagree group. The mean serum creatinine, triglycerides, and electrocardiogram voltage in the Disagree group were intermediate between those observed in the Agree-NT and the Agree-HT group. In the Disagree group, the mean levels of office and home diastolic BP, all of the components of ambulatory BP, the aortic systolic BP, and the BP variabilities were found to be intermediate between those of the Agree-NT and the Agree-HT groups. These results indicate that individuals showing a diagnostic disagreement between their home and ambulatory BP may have cardiovascular risks that are intermediate between those with sustained home and ambulatory normotension and hypertension