The Blood Pressure "Uncertainty Range" – a pragmatic approach to overcome current diagnostic uncertainties (II)

A tremendous amount of scientific evidence regarding the physiology and physiopathology of high blood pressure combined with a sophisticated therapeutic arsenal is at the disposal of the medical community to counteract the overall public health burden of hypertension. Ample evidence has also been gathered from a multitude of large-scale randomized trials indicating the beneficial effects of current treatment strategies in terms of reduced hypertension-related morbidity and mortality. In spite of these impressive advances and, deeply disappointingly from a public health perspective, the real picture of hypertension management is overshadowed by widespread diagnostic inaccuracies (underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis) as well as by treatment failures generated by undertreatment, overtreatment, and misuse of medications. The scientific, medical and patient communities as well as decision-makers worldwide are striving for greatest possible health gains from available resources. A seemingly well-crystallised reasoning is that comprehensive strategic approaches must not only target hypertension as a pathological entity, but rather, take into account the wider environment in which hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease carrying a great deal of our inheritance, and its interplay in the constellation of other, well-known, modifiable risk factors, i.e., attention is to be switched from one's "blood pressure level" to one's absolute cardiovascular risk and its determinants. Likewise, a risk/benefit assessment in each individual case is required in order to achieve best possible results. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to insure generalizability of ABPM use in clinical practice with the aim of improving the accuracy of a first diagnosis for both individual treatment and clinical research purposes. Widespread adoption of the method requires quick adjustment of current guidelines, development of appropriate technology infrastructure and training of staff (i.e., education, decision support, and information systems for practitioners and patients). Progress can be achieved in a few years, or in the next 25 years

An observational study of the medical events associated with clinician-initiated changes in treatment for essential hypertension

We report a retrospective longitudinal observational study of co-morbidities and medical events associated with initiations and changes in antihypertensive therapy in 475 hypertensive patients of a large general practice. The median follow-up time was 7.0 years for males and 7.2 years for females. The data showed a low frequency of appropriate lifestyle recommendations (<30%), a gender-bias in lifestyle recommendations against women and that more than half of all patients' blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled when last seen. Nearly half of all patients had co-morbidities relevant to essential hypertension (EHT) at first treatment for EHT and more than 11% of patients had more than one such co-morbidity. Whilst there was an increase in usage of ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCB) as first treatment for EHT, there was also evidence that the existence of relevant co-morbidities rationally accounted for the majority of that increase. There were 5176 medical events relevant to EHT associated with change of drug or dosage treatment of EHT and the study provided evidence that the occurrence of such relevant medical events can rationally account for the majority of changes to EHT treatment. The study suggests that whilst general practitioners may fail to promote lifestyle changes to their patients with EHT, there is evidence that, when examined in sufficient detail, general practitioners' decisions to initiate changes in antihypertensive therapy are in keeping with the evidence base