Prevalence and factors associated with masked hypertension in chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: Optimal blood pressure (BP) control is key to prevent cardiovascular complications in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We described the prevalence and factors associated with masked hypertension in CKD. METHODS: We analyzed 1113 ambulatory 24-h BP monitoring (ABPM) records of 632 patients referred for kidney function evaluation. Masked hypertension was defined as office BP less than 140/90 mmHg but daytime BP at least 135/85 mmHg or nighttime BP at least 120/70 mmHg. Factors associated with masked hypertension were assessed with mixed logistic regression models. RESULTS: At inclusion, 424 patients (67%) had controlled office BP, of whom 56% had masked hypertension. In multivariable analysis conducted in all visits with controlled office BP ( n  = 782), masked hypertension was positively associated with male sex [adjusted OR (95% confidence interval) 1.91 (1.16-3.27)], sub-Saharan African origin [2.51 (1.32-4.63)], BMI [1.11 (1.01-1.17) per 1 kg/m 2 ], and albuminuria [1.29 [1.12 - 1.47] per 1 log unit), and was negatively associated with plasma potassium (0.42 [0.29 - 0.71] per 1 mmol/L) and 24-h urinary potassium excretion (0.91 [0.82 - 0.99] per 10 mmol/24 h) as well as the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS) blockers (0.56 [0.31 - 0.97]) and diuretics (0.41 [0.27 - 0.72]). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the routine use of ABPM in CKD, as more than half of the patients with controlled office BP had masked hypertension. Weight control, higher potassium intake (with caution in advanced CKD), correction of hypokalemia, and larger use of diuretics and RAAS blockers could be potential levers for better out-of-office BP control.

Role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients having controlled office blood pressure.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring has become useful in the diagnosis and management of hypertensive individuals. In this study we tried to know the role of office and ambulatory BP in treated hypertensive patients. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Prospective cohort of 561 treated hypertensive patients were enrolled in the study. Hypertension definitions were according to JNC 8 classification. Office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring was done according to defined protocol. RESULTS: From a subgroup of 158 treated hypertensive patients, 91(16.2%) patients were having white coat hypertension (p value 0.00 by Pearson chi square test). In a subset of 403 patients who were having controlled BP on the day of enrolment as well as on the day of attaching ambulatory BP monitor; 98 (17.4%) patients were having masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH). In addition there was very significant percentage of non-dippers and reverse dippers. In our study we found that office BP has a moderate to low specificity and sensitivity and low negative predictive value for overall control in treated hypertensive patients. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory BP monitoring should be included in the management protocol of treated hypertensive patients, for the optimal BP control.

Comparison of the association of masked hypertension defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline versus the JNC7 guideline with left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC7), the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood pressure (BP) guideline uses lower BP thresholds to define hypertension and BP control. METHODS: We pooled data from five US-based studies to compare the association of masked hypertension (MHT) and masked uncontrolled hypertension, defined using the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline ( n  = 1653 without high office BP; <130/80 mmHg) versus the JNC7 guideline ( n  = 2451 without high office BP; <140/90 mmHg), with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). MHT and masked uncontrolled hypertension were defined using office BP and awake BP alone and awake, asleep, or 24-h BP. LVH was assessed by echocardiography. RESULTS: Among participants without high office BP not taking antihypertensive medication, the prevalence of MHT defined by the JNC7 guideline and the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline was 25.0 and 33.5% using awake BP only and 37.1 and 52.0% when using awake, asleep, or 24-h BP. The adjusted prevalence ratios for LVH associated with MHT versus sustained normotension defined by the JNC7 and 2017 ACC/AHA BP guidelines were 1.72 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-2.64] and 1.56 (95% CI: 0.97-2.51), respectively, when using awake BP only and 2.16 (95% CI: 1.36-3.44) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.58-1.82), respectively, when using awake, asleep or 24-h BP. There was no evidence that masked uncontrolled hypertension was associated with LVH when defined using the BP thresholds in either the JNC7 or the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline. CONCLUSION: The association of MHT with LVH may depend on the BP thresholds used.

Home Blood Pressure Compared With Office Blood Pressure in Relation to Dysglycemia.

BACKGROUND: Masked hypertension is more common in individuals with type 2 diabetes than in individuals with normoglycemia. We aimed to explore if there is a discrepancy between office blood pressure (office BP) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) in relation to HbA1c as well as glycemic status in 5,029 middle-aged individuals. METHODS: HBPM was measured in a subsample of 5,029 participants in The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS), a population-based cohort of 50-64 years old participants. Both office BP and HBPM were obtained after 5 minutes' rest using the semiautomatic Omron M10-IT oscillometric device. White coat effect was calculated by subtracting systolic HBPM from systolic office BP. Participants were classified according to glycemic status: Normoglycemia, prediabetes, or diabetes based on fasting glucose, HbA1c value, and self-reported diabetes diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the included 5,025 participants, 947 (18.8%) had sustained hypertension, 907 (18.0%) reported taking antihypertensive treatment, and 370 (7.4%) had diabetes mellitus. Both systolic office BP and HBPM increased according to worsened glycemic status (P for trend 0.002 and 0.002, respectively). Masked hypertension was more prevalent in participants with dysglycemia compared with normoglycemia (P = 0.036). The systolic white coat effect was reversely associated with HbA1c (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The systolic white coat effect was reversely associated with HbA1c, and the prevalence of masked hypertension increased with dysglycemia.

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.

Prognostic value of non-resistant and resistant masked uncontrolled hypertension detected by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is at higher cardiovascular risk than controlled hypertension (CH). In previous studies, patients with MUCH were considered as a unique group though those receiving ≤2 drugs could be defined as having nonresistant MUCH (NRMUCH) and those receiving ≥3 drugs as having resistant MUCH (RMUCH). The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of NRMUCH and RMUCH detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Cardiovascular risk was evaluated in 738 treated hypertensive patients with normal clinic BP. Patients were classified as having CH or MUCH if daytime BP < or ≥ 135/85 mmHg, respectively, regardless of nighttime BP, or CH or MUCH if 24-h BP < or ≥ 130/80 mmHg, respectively, regardless of daytime or nighttime BP. By daytime or 24-h BP, the authors detected 523 (71%), 178 (24%), and 37 (5%) or 463 (63%), 231 (31%), and 44 (6%) patients with CH, NRMUCH, and RMUCH, respectively. During the follow-up (median 10 years), 148 events occurred. After adjustment for covariates, compared to CH, the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), for cardiovascular events was 1.81, 1.27-2.57, and 2.99, 1.73-5.16, in NRMUCH and RMUCH defined by daytime BP, respectively, and 1.58, 1.12-2.23, and 2.21, 1.27-3.82, in NRMUCH and RMUCH defined by 24-h BP, respectively. If RMUCH was compared with NRMUCH, the risk tended to be higher in RMUCH but did not attain statistical significance (P = .08 and P = .23 by daytime and 24-h BP thresholds, respectively). In conclusion, both NRMUCH and RMUCH are at increased cardiovascular risk than CH.

Comparison of intraoperative arterial blood pressure lability during general anaesthesia in masked, uncontrolled hypertensive and adequately controlled hypertensive patients: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive patients are known to have increased perioperative arterial blood pressure (BP) lability, which is related to cardiovascular events. Masked uncontrolled hypertensive patients are at high cardiovascular risk. This study aimed to compare BP lability during general anaesthesia in treated hypertensive patients with normal clinic BP, between masked uncontrolled hypertension and adequately controlled hypertension. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with apparently controlled BP were initially enrolled in this prospective observational study. Home BP was monitored and patients classified into diagnostic groups. Perioperative BP profiles were recorded from before anaesthesia induction until discharge from the recovery room. BP lability was assessed using 3 methods: (1) out-of-range probability, (2) standard deviation (SD) and variance (VAR), and (3) mean and time-averaged absolute change in BP from one measurement to the next (ARV and TARV). RESULTS: Sixteen masked hypertensive and 21 adequately controlled hypertensive patients were analysed. The masked group had higher of BP lability [95% CI] as measured by SD than the adequately controlled group during intraoperative and postoperative periods (SBP-SD, intraoperative 17.97 [15.33, 20.60] vs. 13.528 [11.22, 15.82], P = 0.014; postoperative 10.40 [7.65, 13.16] vs. 5.49 [2.96, 8.02], P = 0.012). MAP-SD, intraoperative 12.35 [10.70, 13.99] vs. 9.66 [8.22, 11.10], P = 0.017; postoperative 7.21 [5.05, 9,38] vs. 4.06 [2.09, 6.05], P = 0.037). ARV and TARV also revealed higher intraoperative SBP lability; non-time-averaged (mmHg) 12.40 [10.43, 14.37] vs. 9.50 [7.78, 11.22], P = 0.031 and time-averaged (mmHg min-1) 2.35 [1.95, 2,74] vs. 1.82 [1.49, 2.16], P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Masked uncontrolled hypertensive patients had significantly higher BP lability in SBP and MAP during the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods.

Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes Toward Screening and Treatment of Masked Hypertension in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension guidelines recommend screening and treatment for masked hypertension (MHT). Yet, few primary care providers (PCPs) screen for MHT, and little is known about PCP awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward MHT. METHODS: Three focus groups involving 30 PCPs from 3 medical centers in New York were conducted. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Awareness of MHT varied, and only 2 providers had diagnosed MHT. There was also low knowledge about the prevalence and impact of MHT. While some PCPs were receptive to MHT screening after learning about its significance, others viewed the current evidence as insufficient to change practice. Providers were discomforted by labeling patients with nonelevated office blood pressure (BP) as hypertensive and reluctant to add another screening test to their workload without stronger evidence. There was distrust in the accuracy of home BP monitoring to screen for MHT. There was more confidence in ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) for MHT screening, but ABPM was viewed as largely inaccessible. There was broad agreement with lifestyle changes for MHT. There were concerns that antihypertensive medication lacked evidence from randomized trials and could induce harmful side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Limited PCP knowledge about MHT, concerns about the accuracy and accessibility of screening tests, overloaded PCPs, and insufficient evidence were major barriers to screening and treatment for MHT. Prior to broad uptake by PCPs, randomized trials demonstrating the net benefits of MHT screening and treatment may be needed, along with increased dissemination of knowledge about MHT and improved access to ABPM.

Correlation Between Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Office Blood Pressure Measurement in Patients with Hypertension: A Community Study.

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for blood pressure (BP) measurements is based on office BP measurements (OBPMs) by a sphygmomanometer or a digital device. Ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM) is a noninvasive method for continuous monitoring of BP over a period during routine activities of the patient. Thus, ABPM offers multiple BP readings during the patients' daily routine as compared to the single reading by OBPM at rest. A good correlation exists between mean 24-hour BP readings and the prediction of cardiovascular events. The present multicenter observational study was aimed to assess the correlation between ABPM and OBPM in patients with newly diagnosed, controlled, or uncontrolled hypertension in the community setting. Our hypothesis was to test if ABPM provides any further value in those hypertensive patients in whom the office blood pressure levels are controlled. A supplementary hypothesis was whether obtaining ABPM in patients with newly diagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension yields any value over and beyond OBPM. Another objective was to find out the applicability of ABPM in the community setting where the medical care is provided by primary care family physicians and not by specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods A total of 1000 patients were analysed for this study. Those with controlled hypertension were assigned to Group A, and those with newly diagnosed/untreated hypertension comprised Group B. Group A was followed up during Visit 2 and Group B was followed up during Visit 2 and either Visit 3 or Visit 4 to assess the BP measurements by ABPM and OBPM. RESULTS: The correlation between ABPM and OBPM showed minimal variation in the BP readings of Group A subjects at Visit 2. A variation in BP readings was observed in Group B at Visit 2. Furthermore, the correlation was established between ABPM and OBPM noted for Group B subjects during Visit 3, and minimal variation was noted during Visit 4. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions A good correlation was observed between ABPM and OBPM during both visits in patients in Groups A and B. However, a notable variation was noted in the diastolic BP readings. Thus, large-scale clinical studies are required to detect the prevalence of hypertension, masked hypertension, and dipping patterns associated with hypertension and other related medical co-morbidities.

Long-term effect of masked hypertension management on cognitive functions in geriatric age: geriatric MASked hypertension and cognition follow-up study (G-MASH-cog MONITOR).

OBJECTIVES: Masked hypertension, defined as nonelevated clinic blood pressure with elevated out of clinic blood pressure, has been associated with increased cardiovascular events, mortality and cognitive impairment. No evidence exists regarding the effect of treating masked hypertension. In this study, we followed-up the patients in the G-MASH-cog study for 1 year and aimed to examine the effect of the management of masked hypertension on cognitive functions. METHODS: The G-MASH-cog study participants were followed-up for 1 year. In masked hypertensive individuals, lifestyle modification and antihypertensive treatment (perindopril or amlodipine) were initiated for blood pressure control. Measurements of cognitive tests and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at baseline and at 1-year follow-up were compared. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients (30 in masked hypertension group; 31 in normotensive group) were included. Mean age was 72.3 ± 5.1 and 59% of the participants were female. Compared with baseline ambulatory blood pressure measurement results, patients with masked hypertension had significantly lower ambulatory blood pressure measurement results after 1-year follow-up. The quick mild cognitive impairment test (Q-MCI-TR) score increased with antihypertensive treatment (Q-MCI score at baseline = 41(19-66.5), at 1 year = 45.5 (22-70), P = 0.005) in masked hypertensive patients. In the final model of the mixed-effects analysis, when adjusted for covariates, interaction effect of the masked hypertension treatment with time was only significant in influencing the changes in Q-MCI scores over time in patients aged between 65 and 74 years (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of masked hypertension in older adults was associated with improvement in cognitive functions.

Characteristics and control of the 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with metabolic syndrome.

Asian countries are facing an increasing prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS), which may aggravate the burden of cardiovascular diseases in this region. MetS is closely associated with ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Patients with MetS, compared to those without, had a twofold higher risk of new-onset office, home, or ambulatory hypertension. Furthermore, the risk of new-onset MetS in patients with white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension was also doubled compared to normotensives. High-risk masked hypertension and blunted nighttime BP dipping are common in patients with MetS, suggesting perfect 24-hour BP control with long-acting antihypertensive drugs and early initiation of combination therapy might be especially important for patients with MetS.

Prevalence of masked hypertension evaluated by home blood pressure monitoring in a large sample of patients with office blood pressure <140/90 mmHg.

AIM: Patients with masked hypertension have a higher incidence of target organ damage, including increased left ventricular mass and carotid atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events when compared with normotensive patients. The adverse cardiovascular risks are even greater in patients already taking antihypertensive medication. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence and clinical characteristics of masked hypertension in a large multicenter Brazilian sample that underwent office and home blood pressure monitoring. METHODS: This was an observational cross-sectional analytical study based on secondary data from the teleMRPA online platform, which included 32 cities from 15 states in the five regions of Brazil. The database included 3704 outpatient participants with office blood pressure <140/90 mmHg who performed home blood pressure monitoring for diagnostic investigation (diagnosis group; n = 1819) or treatment (treatment group; n = 1885) of hypertension in 2018. RESULTS: The prevalence of masked hypertension was 18.0% in the whole studied population and 15.4% and 20.4% in the diagnostic and treatment group, respectively. Masked hypertension was more frequently detected in patients with office blood pressure classified as high normal [systolic blood pressure (SBP) = 130-139 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) = 85-89 mmHg], followed by those classified as normal (SBP = 120-129 mmHg or DBP = 80-84 mmHg) and optimal (SBP < 120 mmHg and DBP < 80 mmHg), with respective prevalence of 28.3, 13.4 and 4.4% in the diagnostic group and 30.8, 18.8 and 7.1% in the treatment group. CONCLUSION: Masked hypertension has a significant prevalence among individuals with office blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, which is greater with patients with high normal office blood pressure and even higher in patients already using antihypertensive medication.

Hypertension trials update.

Hypertension is one of the most prevalent cardiovascular diseases and its treatment requires multimodal therapeutic approaches. This review aims to provide a summary and update on relevant evidence in hypertension research published in 2019/2020. These include trials dealing with the prognostic effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure values, the association between hypertension and valve disease, reproducibility of masked and white-coat hypertension, and the prognostic importance of ambulatory and night-time blood pressure measurements. Treatment of hypertension focusing on elderly patients but also the potential cancer risk of thiazide diuretics, the valsartan recall, chronotherapy, and device-based hypertension therapy are discussed.

Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension Is Accompanied by Increased Out-of-Clinic Aldosterone Secretion.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) in treated patients is defined as controlled office blood pressure (BP) but uncontrolled out-of-clinic ambulatory BP. Previously, we have shown that patients with MUCH have evidence of heightened out-of-clinic sympathetic nervous system activity. The aim is to test the hypothesis that MUCH patients have higher aldosterone secretion compared with patients with true controlled hypertension. Two hundred twenty-two patients were recruited after having controlled office BP readings at ≥3 clinic visits. Patients taking MR (mineralocorticoid receptor) antagonists and epithelial sodium channel blockers were excluded. All patients were evaluated by clinic automated office BP and morning serum aldosterone and plasma renin activity. Out-of-clinic ambulatory BP monitoring and 24-hour urinary aldosterone, catecholamines, and metanephrines were also measured. Sixty-four patients had MUCH, and the remaining 48 patients had true controlled hypertension. MUCH patients had significantly higher out-of-clinic levels of 24-hour urinary aldosterone, catecholamines, and metanephrines compared with true controlled hypertension. The 2 groups did not differ in serum aldosterone, plasma renin activity, or aldosterone-renin ratio collected in clinic. In addition, 32.8% of MUCH patients had high out-of-clinic 24-hour urinary aldosterone (≥12 µg) but normal clinic serum aldosterone (<15 ng/dL) and aldosterone-renin ratio (<20). Further, in correlation matrix analysis, higher 24-hour urinary catecholamines and metanephrines were associated with higher 24-hour urinary aldosterone and plasma renin activity levels in MUCH patients. Patients with MUCH have higher out-of-clinic urinary aldosterone levels compared with patients with true controlled hypertension. This study suggests that patients with MUCH likely have higher out-of-clinic sympathetic nervous system tone increases aldosterone secretion mediated by increased renin release that may contribute to their higher out-of-clinic BP.

Treatment of Masked Hypertension with a Chinese Herbal Formula: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Masked hypertension is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Nonetheless, no randomized controlled trials exist in the treatment of masked hypertension. The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment with a Chinese herbal formula, gastrodia-uncaria granules, in patients with masked hypertension. METHODS: Patients with an office BP of <140/90 mm Hg and daytime ambulatory BP of 135 to 150 mm Hg systolic or 85 to 95 mm Hg diastolic were randomly assigned 1:1 to the treatment of gastrodia-uncaria granules or placebo 5 to 10 g twice daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in daytime ambulatory BP. RESULTS: At baseline, office and daytime BP of the 251 participants (mean age, 50.4 years; 53.4% men; mean body mass index 24.5 kg/m2; and 2.8%, 1.6%, and 30.7% with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and smoking, respectively) averaged 129/82 and 135/89 mm Hg, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, daytime systolic/diastolic BP was reduced by 5.44/3.39 and 2.91/1.60 mm Hg in the gastrodia-uncaria granules and placebo groups, respectively. The between-group difference in BP reductions was significant for the daytime (2.52/1.79 mm Hg; P≤0.025) and 24-hour BP (2.33/1.49 mm Hg; P≤0.012), but not for the clinic and nighttime BPs (P≥0.162). The per-protocol analysis in 229 patients produced similar results. Only 1 adverse event (sleepiness during the day) was reported, and no serious adverse event occurred. CONCLUSIONS: BP-lowering treatment with Chinese traditional medicine gastrodia-uncaria granules is efficacious for patients with masked hypertension. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02156024.

Effects of Intensive Versus Standard Office-Based Hypertension Treatment Strategy on White-Coat Effect and Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension: From the SPRINT ABPM Ancillary Study.

Guidelines recommend using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements to confirm the diagnoses of hypertension and in the titration of antihypertensive medication. The prevalence of out-of-office BP phenotypes for an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <140/90 mm Hg has been reported. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes when targeting an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <120/80 is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory BP Ancillary study evaluated out-of-office BP using ambulatory BP monitoring in 897 participants 27 months after randomization to intensive versus standard BP targets (office systolic BP <120 versus <140 mm Hg). We used office and daytime BP to assess the proportion of participants with white-coat effect (standard target: office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP ≥120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP <120/80 mm Hg) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (standard target: office BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP <120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥120/80 mm Hg) in each treatment arm. The prevalence of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension was 9% and 34%, in both treatment groups. Among participants with uncontrolled office BP, white-coat effect was present in 20% and 23% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. Among participants with controlled office BP, masked uncontrolled hypertension was present in 62% and 56% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. In conclusion, a more intensive BP target resulted in a similar proportion of patients with white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension compared with a standard target.

Cardiovascular Event Risks Associated With Masked Nocturnal Hypertension Defined by Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in the J-HOP Nocturnal Blood Pressure Study.

There is no information regarding the potential association between cardiovascular disease (CVD) event risks and masked nocturnal hypertension defined by home blood pressure (BP) monitoring. We sought to examine this association in a general practice population. For this purpose, we used data from the J-HOP (Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure) Nocturnal BP Study, which recruited 2745 high-cardiovascular-risk participants (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.4] years; 48.7% men; 82.7% on antihypertensive medications). Nocturnal home BPs (HBPs) were measured at 2:00, 3:00, and 4:00 AM using a validated, automated HBP device for 14 consecutive days. The average (SD) of nocturnal HBP measures was 17.1 (13.5). The percentages of participants with controlled BP (nocturnal HBP <120/70 mm Hg and average morning and evening BP <135/85 mm Hg), daytime hypertension (nocturnal HBP <120/70 mm Hg and average morning and evening BP ≥135/85 mm Hg), masked nocturnal hypertension (nocturnal HBP ≥120/70 mm Hg and average morning and evening BP <135/85 mm Hg), and sustained hypertension (nocturnal HBP ≥120/70 mm Hg and average morning and evening BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) were 31.7%, 7.9%, 26.7%, and 33.7%, respectively. During a median 7.6-year follow-up (19 519 person-years), 162 CVD events occurred. The cumulative incidence of CVD events was higher in those with masked nocturnal hypertension and sustained hypertension than in the controlled BP group. Results from Cox models suggested that masked nocturnal hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.00-2.46]) and sustained hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.26-3.06]) were associated with increased risk of CVD events. Participants with masked nocturnal hypertension defined by HBP monitoring are at high risk of future CVD events.