Cost-Effectiveness of Masked Hypertension Screening and Treatment in US Adults With Suspected Masked Hypertension: A Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.

Controversies in Hypertension I: The Optimal Assessment of Blood Pressure Load and Implications for Treatment.

The most important factor in treating hypertension is assessing an individual patient's true blood pressure load, the cornerstone being research-grade office determination. Office blood pressure should be supplemented with out-of-office measurement, including home and ambulatory monitoring (if available), which we consider complementary and not interchangeable. Controversy remains for initiation of treatment of white coat hypertension, where cardiovascular risk lies between normotension and sustained hypertension; antihypertensive therapy should be considered unless low cardiovascular risk, wherein pressures should be followed for progression to sustained hypertension. Available data do not support intensification of therapy for the white coat effect due to the similar cardiovascular risk to controlled hypertension. Given the higher cardiovascular risk of the masked effect, initiation of therapy for masked hypertension and intensification for masked uncontrolled hypertension are indicated, acknowledging the dearth of supporting data. Optimally, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the benefit of treating the 4 incongruous phenotypes between office and out-of-office measurements, that is, those with white coat or masked effects. We make no recommendations regarding chronotherapy pending results of ongoing trials.

Blood pressure related to age: The India ABPM study.

The present paper reports trends in office blood pressure (BP) measurement (OBPM) and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) with age in a large multi-center Indian all comers' population visiting primary care physicians. ABPM and OBPM data from 27 472 subjects (aged 51 ± 14 years, males 68.2%, treated 45.5%) were analyzed and compared. Individual differences between OBPM and ABPM patterns were compared for patients according to 10-year age categories. Results showed that systolic (S) BP values started to increase with age from the age of 40, BP variability (SD) increased from the age of 30 years. Diastolic (D) BP values started to decrease from the age of 50 years. Mean OBPM values were higher than daytime ABPM values (all P < .001) in all age-groups. The prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH) was based on OBPM and daytime, 24-hour, and nighttime average BPs together. WCH decreased with age from 15.1% and 12.4% in treated and untreated subjects at the youngest age to 7.2% and 6.9% in the oldest age, respectively. MH prevalence was higher for untreated than for treated subjects but remained similar for all age-groups (range of 18.6%-21.3%). The prevalence of reverse dippers increased with age from the youngest to oldest group with 7.3%-34.2% (P < .001 for trend). Dippers prevalence decreased from 42.5% to 17.9% from the youngest to oldest age-groups, respectively (P < .001 for trend). These findings confirm that BP patterns show clear differences in trends with age, particularly regarding nighttime BP.

Increased cardiovascular risk of treated white coat and masked hypertension in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease: the HONEST Study.

The prognostic implications of treated white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) are not well documented. Using data from the HONEST study (n=21 591), we investigated the relationships between morning home systolic blood pressure (MHSBP) or clinic systolic blood pressure (CSBP) and cardiovascular (CV) risk in hypertensive patients with and without DM or CKD receiving olmesartan-based antihypertensive therapy. The study included 4426 DM patients and 4346 CKD patients at baseline who had 101 and 87 major CV events, respectively, during the follow-up. Compared with well-controlled non-DM patients (MHSBP <135 mm Hg; CSBP <140 mm Hg), DM patients with WCH (MHSBP <135 mm Hg; CSBP ⩾140 mm Hg), MH (MHSBP ⩾135 mm Hg; CSBP <140 mm Hg) or poorly controlled hypertension (PCH) (MHSBP ⩾135 mm Hg; CSBP ⩾140 mm Hg) had significantly higher CV risk (hazard ratio (HR), 2.73, 2.77 and 2.81, respectively). CV risk was also significantly increased in CKD patients with WCH, MH and PCH (HR, 2.14, 1.70 and 2.20, respectively) compared with well-controlled non-CKD patients. Furthermore, DM patients had significantly higher incidence rate than non-DM patients of MHSBP ⩾125 to <135 mm Hg (HR, 1.98) and ⩾135 to <145 mm Hg (HR, 2.41). In conclusion, both WCH and MH are associated with increased CV risk, and thus control of both MHSBP and CSBP is important to reduce CV risk in DM or CKD patients. The results also suggest that even lower MHSBP (<125 mm Hg) may be beneficial for DM patients, although this conclusion is limited by the small number of patients.

Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients, Cardiovascular Risk Profile and the Prevalence of Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension (MUCH).

INTRODUCTION: The term masked hypertension (MH) should be used for untreated individuals who have normal office blood pressure but elevated ambulatory blood pressure. For treated patients, this condition should be termed masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH). RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) has gone unrecognized because few studies have used 24-h ABPM to determine the prevalence of suboptimal BP control in seemingly well-treated patients, and there are few such studies in large cohorts of treated patients attending usual clinical practice. This is important because masked hypertension is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. This study was conducted to obtain more information about the association between hypertension and other CV risk factors, about office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control as well as on cardiovascular (CV) risk profile in treated hypertensive patients, also to define the prevalence and characteristics of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) among treated hypertensive patients in routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study 2514 male and female patients were included during a period of 5 years follow up. All patients have ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for at least 24h. We identified patients with treated and controlled BP according to current international guidelines (clinic BP, 140/90mmHg). Cardiovascular risk assessment was based on personal history, clinic BP values, as well as target organ damage evaluation. Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) was diagnosed in these patients if despite controlled clinic BP, the mean 24-h ABPM average remained elevated (24-h systolic BP ≥130mmHg and/or 24-h diastolic BP ≥80mmHg). RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 60.2+10 years, and the majority of them (94.6%) were followed by specialist physicians. Average clinic BP was 150.4+16/89.9+12 mmHg. About 70% of patients displayed a very high-risk profile. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed in all recruited patients for at least 24h. Despite the combined medical treatment (78% of the patients), clinic control (<140/90 mmHg) was achieved in only 26.2% of patients, the corresponding control rate for ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) being 32.7%. From 2514 patients with treated BP, we identified 803 with treated and controlled office BP control (<140/90 mmHg), of whom 258 patients (32.1%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 57.2 years, 54.7% men). The prevalence of MUCH was slightly higher in males, patients with borderline clinic and office BP (130-139/80-89 mmHg), and patients at high cardiovascular risk (smokers, diabetes, obesity). Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) was most often due to poor control of nocturnal BP, with the proportion of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that solely attributable to daytime BP elevation (22.3 vs. 10.1%, P 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control in patients with treated and well-controlled clinic BP is high. The characteristics of patients with MUCH (male, longer duration of hypertension, obesity, smoking history, and diabetes) indicate that this is a higher-risk group with most to gain from improved BP.

Blood Pressure Out of the Office: Its Time Has Finally Come.

The diagnosis of hypertension includes measurement of blood pressure out of the office by either 24-hour ambulatory monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring. These methods have led to recognition of "white coat hypertension" (WCH) and "masked hypertension" (MH). Research in the 1930s first demonstrated that blood pressures in the office were often far different from those out of the office, at a time when there was no effective treatment. International attention was focused on another imminent world war and a highly controversial election in the United States. Hypertension was not a priority for concern. From the 1950s onward: (i) epidemiology linked hypertension to risk of cardiovascular disease, (ii) effective and safe drugs for treatment of hypertension appeared, (iii) randomized clinical trials demonstrated that drug treatment of hypertension is highly effective for prevention of cardiovascular disease, and (iv) advances in technology led to development of small, portable devices for recording blood pressure noninvasively at home or during usual activities. Accurate measurement of blood pressure in "real life" is now necessary and feasible for appropriate diagnosis and assessment of treatment. Out-of-office blood pressure measurement is emerging as the standard of care for hypertension.

Effectiveness of olmesartan-based treatment on home and clinic blood pressure in elderly patients with masked and white coat hypertension.

Few large-scale studies have evaluated the effectiveness of angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with masked hypertension (MH) and white coat hypertension (WCH) based on age using real-world blood pressure (BP) data. We used data from the Home BP measurement with Olmesartan Naive patients to Establish Standard Target BP (HONEST) study to investigate the effectiveness of olmesartan-based treatment by patient age (<65 years of age, n = 9817; 65-74 years of age, n = 6792; ⩾ 75 years of age, n = 4732), focusing on morning home BP (strongly associated with cardiovascular disease and useful for MH and WCH diagnosis). Sixteen weeks of treatment changed morning home BP (mean systolic/diastolic) by -18.1/-9.7, -15.9/-7.4 and -14.2/-6.4 mm Hg and clinic BP by -20.1/-11.3, -17.3/-8.7 and -15.4/-7.2 mm Hg, in these age groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Pulse pressure decreased (-7.8 to -8.8 mm Hg, P < 0.0001). Patients aged ⩾ 80 years experienced similar BP and pulse pressure changes. In patients aged ⩾ 75 years, mean morning and clinic BP after 16 weeks was 137.5/74.8 and 129.7/70.4 mm Hg, respectively, in MH patients and 132.3/72.2 and 139.7/72.7 mm Hg, respectively, in WCH patients. Regardless of age, only elevated clinic or home BP values decreased to target ranges. The incidence of adverse effects associated with excessive BP lowering was low in all of the age groups. In conclusion, our study suggests that olmesartan-based treatment was safe and useful for managing MH, WCH and sustained hypertension in elderly patients. The lack of a placebo group was a limitation of the study.

Effects of olmesartan-based treatment on masked, white-coat, poorly controlled, and well-controlled hypertension: HONEST study.

The authors examined the effects of olmesartan-based treatment on clinic systolic blood pressure (CSBP) and morning home systolic blood pressure (HSBP) in 21,340 patients with masked hypertension (MH), white-coat hypertension (WCH), poorly controlled hypertension (PCH), and well-controlled hypertension (CH) using data from the Home Blood Pressure Measurement With Olmesartan Naive Patients to Establish Standard Target Blood Pressure (HONEST) study. MH, WCH, PCH, and CH were defined using CSBP 140 mm Hg and MHSBP 135 mm Hg as cutoff values at baseline. At 16 weeks, the MH, WCH, PCH, and CH groups had changes in CSBP by -1.0, -15.2, -23.1, and 1.8 mm Hg, and changes in morning HSBP by -12.5, 1.0, -20.3, and 2.0 mm Hg, respectively. In conclusion, in "real-world" clinical practice, olmesartan-based treatment decreased high morning HBP or CBP without excessive decreases in normal morning HBP or CBP according to patients' BP status.

Ambulatory blood pressure improves prediction of cardiovascular risk: implications for better antihypertensive management.

Accurate measurement of arterial pressure is necessary for diagnosis of hypertension and for assessment of its therapy. The development and growing application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) furthers these goals. Use of ABPM has defined white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH), important prognostic diagnoses. ABPM categorizes blood pressure in several ways that increase accuracy for diagnosis and prediction of cardiovascular risk. Measurements of blood pressure throughout the day, at night during sleep, during the morning surge, and, in some instances selected intervals can be especially valuable for both research and clinical management. ABPM is being explored for its value in measuring pulse pressure and a derived index of arterial stiffness. ABPM has also shown to be valuable for defining the effects of antihypertensive drugs therapy. Results of such studies are crucial for advancing antihypertensive management. This review will summarize the important and emerging role of ABPM in defining risk for cardiovascular disease.

Diagnostic accuracy of home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension.

Several studies with relatively small size and different design and end points have investigated the diagnostic ability of home blood pressure (HBP). This study investigated the usefulness of HBP compared with ambulatory monitoring (ABP) in diagnosing sustained hypertension, white coat phenomenon (WCP) and masked hypertension (MH) in a large sample of untreated and treated subjects using a blood pressure (BP) measurement protocol according to the current guidelines. A total of 613 subjects attending a hypertension clinic (mean age 53±12.4 (s.d.) years, men 57%, untreated 59%) had measurements of clinic BP (three visits, triplicate measurements per visit), HBP (6 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements) and awake ABP (20-min intervals) within 6 weeks. Sustained hypertension was diagnosed in 50% of the participants by ABP and HBP (agreement 89%, κ=0.79), WCP in 14 and 15%, respectively (agreement 89%, κ=0.56) and MH in 16% and 15% (agreement 88%, κ=0.52). Only 4% of the subjects (27/613) showed clinically significant diagnostic disagreement with BP deviation >5 mm Hg above the diagnostic threshold (for HBP or ABP). By taking ABP as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of HBP in detecting sustained hypertension were 90, 89, 89 and 90%, respectively, WCP 61, 94, 64 and 94% and MH 60, 93, 60 and 93%. Similar diagnostic agreement was found in untreated and treated subjects. HBP appears to be a reliable alternative to ABP in the diagnosis of hypertension and the detection of WCP and MH in both untreated and treated subjects.