Diagnosing hypertension in primary care: a retrospective cohort study to investigate the importance of night-time blood pressure assessment.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM) has become less frequent in primary care since the COVID-19 pandemic, with home blood-pressure monitoring (HBPM) often the preferred alternative; however, HBPM cannot measure night-time blood pressure (BP), and patients whose night-time BP does not dip, or rises (reverse dipping), have poorer cardiovascular outcomes. AIM: To investigate the importance of measuring night-time BP when assessing individuals for hypertension. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of two patient populations - namely, hospital patients admitted to four UK acute hospitals located in Oxfordshire, and participants of the BP in different ethnic groups (BP-Eth) study, who were recruited from 28 UK general practices in the West Midlands. METHOD: Using BP data collected for the two cohorts, three systolic BP phenotypes (dipper, non-dipper, and reverse dipper) were studied. RESULTS: Among the hospital cohort, 48.9% (n = 10 610/21 716) patients were 'reverse dippers', with an average day-night systolic BP difference of +8.0 mmHg. Among the community (BP-Eth) cohort, 10.8% (n = 63/585) of patients were reverse dippers, with an average day-night systolic BP difference of +8.5 mmHg. Non-dipper and reverse-dipper phenotypes both had lower daytime systolic BP and higher night-time systolic BP than the dipper phenotype. Average daytime systolic BP was lowest in the reverse-dipping phenotype (this was 6.5 mmHg and 6.8 mmHg lower than for the dipper phenotype in the hospital and community cohorts, respectively), thereby placing them at risk of undiagnosed, or masked, hypertension. CONCLUSION: Not measuring night-time BP puts all groups, other than dippers, at risk of failure to identify hypertension. As a result of this study, it is recommended that GPs should offer ABPM to all patients aged ≥60 years as a minimum when assessing for hypertension.

Assessment of glycaemic status in adult hospital patients for the detection of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

AIM: In-hospital blood glucose testing is commonplace, particularly in acute care. In-hospital screening for hyperglycaemia may present a valuable opportunity for early diabetes diagnosis by identifying at-risk individuals. This systematic review investigates the extent to which random blood glucose testing in acute and inpatient hospital settings predicts undiagnosed diabetes. METHODS: Two databases were systematically searched for studies in which adult patients received an in-hospital random blood glucose test, followed by a diagnostic HbA1c test. The primary outcome was the proportion of hyperglycaemic individuals diagnosed with diabetes by HbA1c. RESULTS: A total of 3245 unique citations were identified, and 12 were eligible for inclusion. Ten different blood glucose thresholds, ranging from 5.5 to 11.1 mmol/L, were used to detect hyperglycaemia, indicating that there is no consistent clinical definition for hyperglycaemia. The proportion of participants with hyperglycaemia in each study ranged from 3.3% to 62.1%, with a median (Q1 , Q3 ) of 34.5% (5.95%, 61.1%). The proportion of hyperglycaemic participants found to have a diabetes-range HbA1c varied from 4.1% to 90%, with a median (Q1 , Q3 ) of 18.9% (11.5%, 61.1%). Meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity between study protocols. CONCLUSIONS: All studies consistently identified a proportion of hyperglycaemic hospital patients as having a diabetes-range HbA1c, showing that in-hospital blood glucose screening can facilitate diabetes diagnosis. The proportion of hyperglycaemic participants with undiagnosed diabetes varied substantially, indicating a need for further research and consistency in defining in-hospital hyperglycaemia. This may aid the development of a standardised screening protocol to identify people with possible undiagnosed diabetes.

Association Between Blood Pressure Control and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes in 45 418 Symptomatic Patients With Hypertension: An Observational Cohort Study.

Hypertension has been identified as a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated adverse outcomes. This study examined the association between preinfection blood pressure (BP) control and COVID-19 outcomes using data from 460 general practices in England. Eligible patients were adults with hypertension who were tested or diagnosed with COVID-19. BP control was defined by the most recent BP reading within 24 months of the index date (January 1, 2020). BP was defined as controlled (<130/80 mm Hg), raised (130/80-139/89 mm Hg), stage 1 uncontrolled (140/90-159/99 mm Hg), or stage 2 uncontrolled (≥160/100 mm Hg). The primary outcome was death within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between BP control and outcomes. Of the 45 418 patients (mean age, 67 years; 44.7% male) included, 11 950 (26.3%) had controlled BP. These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had been diagnosed with hypertension for longer. A total of 4277 patients (9.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 877 died within 28 days. Individuals with stage 1 uncontrolled BP had lower odds of COVID-19 death (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.92]) compared with patients with well-controlled BP. There was no association between BP control and COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization. These findings suggest BP control may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, possibly due to these patients having more advanced atherosclerosis and target organ damage. Such patients may need to consider adhering to stricter social distancing, to limit the impact of COVID-19 as future waves of the pandemic occur.