Ambulatory blood pressure measurement and antihypertensive therapy.

The traditional basis for assessing the effect of antihypertensive therapy is the blood pressure reading taken by a physician. However, several recent trials have been designed to evaluate the blood pressure lowering effect of various therapeutic agents during the patients' normal daytime activities, using a portable, semi-automatic blood pressure recorder. The results have shown that in a given patient, blood pressure measured at the physician's office often differs greatly from that prevailing during the rest of the day. This is true both in treated and untreated hypertensive patients. The difference between office and ambulatory recorded pressures cannot be predicted from blood pressure levels measured by the physician. Therefore, a prospective study was carried out in patients with diastolic blood pressures that were uncontrolled at the physician's office despite antihypertensive therapy. The purpose was to evaluate the response of recorded ambulatory blood pressure to treatment adjustments aimed at reducing office blood pressure below a pre-set target level. Only patients with high ambulatory blood pressures at the outset appeared to benefit from further changes in therapy. Thus, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring can be used to identify those patients who remain hypertensive only when facing the physician, despite antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory monitoring could thus help to evaluate the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy and allow individual treatment.

Felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet: a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive therapy?

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of a calcium antagonist/beta-blocker fixed combination tablet used as first-line antihypertesnive therapy in comparison with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and placebo. Patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 110 mm Hg at the end of a 4-week run-in period) were randomly allocated to a double-blind, 12-week treatment with either a combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol (Logimax), 5/50 mg daily (n = 321), enalapril, 10 mg daily (n = 321), or placebo (n = 304), with the possibility of doubling the dose after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment if needed (diastolic blood pressure remaining >90 mm Hg). The combined felodipine-metoprolol treatment controlled blood pressure (diastolic < or =90 mm Hg 24 h after dose) in 72% of patients after 12 weeks, as compared with 49% for enalapril and 30% for placebo. A dose adjustment was required in 38% of patients receiving the combination, in 63% of patients allocated to placebo, and 61% of enalapril-treated patients. The overall incidence of adverse events was 54.5% during felodipine-metoprolol treatment; the corresponding values for enalapril and placebo were 51.7% and 47.4%, respectively. Withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events occurred in 18 patients treated with the combination, in 10 patients on enalapril, and 12 patients on placebo. No significant change in patients' well-being was observed in either of the three study groups. These results show that a fixed combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol allows to normalize blood pressure in a substantially larger fraction of patients than enalapril given alone. This improved efficacy is obtained without impairing the tolerability. The fixed-dose combination of felodipine and metoprolol, therefore, may become a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive treatment.

Improved blood pressure control by monitoring compliance with antihypertensive therapy.

Compliance with antihypertensive therapy was monitored for three months using an electronic medication dispenser in 35 patients remaining hypertensive despite the once-daily administration of a blood pressure lowering drug (either as monotherapy or as fixed-dose combination therapy). During the monitoring of compliance, the treatment was unchanged but blood pressure decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 167.9/100.4 +/- 16.3/7.2 mmHg (mean +/- SD) to 152.5/90.9 +/- 20.9/11.5 mmHg. The percentage of days with one opening per day was 80.8 +/- 20.5. Thus, discussing with the patient about compliance with the prescribed drug regimen and monitoring compliance for a few months allows better control of blood pressure. This most likely reflects increased compliance with antihypertensive drug therapy.

Position of indapamide , a diuretic with vasorelaxant activities, in antihypertensive therapy.

Introduction: Diuretics play a pivotal role in the management of hypertension. A large experience has been accumulated with indapamide , a long-acting thiazide-like diuretic that lowers blood pressure (BP) primarily through its natriuretic diuretic effect. Some of its long-term antihypertensive efficacy may be due to calcium antagonist-like vasorelaxant activities. Indapamide has protecting effects in a variety of conditions associated with high cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy, nephropathy and stroke. It is highly effective in lowering BP, whether given alone or in combination. Indapamide is well tolerated and has the advantage of having no adverse impact on glucose and lipid metabolism. Today, thiazide-like diuretics are regarded more and more as preferred drugs, when diuretic therapy is required to lower BP. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to review the experience accumulated with indapamide. It is limited to clinical studies that are relevant for the everyday management of hypertensive patients, whether or not they exhibit cardiovascular or renal disease. Expert opinion: Indapamide, because of its well-documented beneficial effects on cardiovascular and renal outcomes, represents a safe and valuable option for treating patients with high BP. There is, however, still room for new trials evaluating the combination of this diuretic with other types of antihypertensive drugs, in particular a calcium antagonist such as amlodipine. There is also the need to compare the indapamide-perindopril and indapamide-amlodipine combinations, in terms of antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability and effects on target organ damage and, ideally, on cardiovascular mortality.

Hypertension. Effets du traitement antihypertenseur sur les fonctions cognitives [Hypertension. Effects of antihypertensive therapy on cognitive functions].

A cause and effect relationship between arterial hypertension and decline of cognitive function has long been suspected. In middle-age subjects indeed, an abnormally high blood pressure is a risk factor for the long-term development of dementia. Presently, it seems crucial to treat hypertensive patients in order to better protect them against cognitive decline. However, in the elderly patients the risk of mental deterioration may also be enhanced when diastolic pressure becomes too low, for example below 70 mmHg. Further studies are required to better define the antihypertensive drug regimen and target blood pressure which would be optimal for the prevention of cerebral small vessel disease.

Target blood pressure attainment with antihypertensive therapy in Swiss primary care.

Introduction: The control of high blood pressure (BP) remains insufficient in developed as well as in developing countries. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to investigate the management of hypertension and the achievement of target BPs in a large population of hypertensive patients treated by Swiss primary care physicians. Methods. Data from 4594 hypertensive patients were collected and assessed for demographic data, mode of treatment and BP achievements for the overall population and for high-risk patients such as diabetics and patients with impaired renal function (CKD patients). Furthermore, we analysed the achieved BP in patients receiving single pill combinations or dual free combinations for the three most commonly prescribed substances. Results. In this large patient population, 84% of patients were receiving an antihypertensive treatment of which 54% showed BP control (< 140/90 mmHg or < 130/80 mmHg for diabetics and patients with CKD). Considering the higher BP target in the elderly, 60.6% of treated patients were on target. In contrast, 28.8% of treated diabetics and 29.7% of patients with impaired renal function met BP goals. Diuretics and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system were the most commonly prescribed substances. High-risk patients and patients at advanced age (≥ 80 years) received dual free combination more frequently than younger patients. The use of diuretics was particularly high because of the prescription of single pill formulations. Differences in the pattern of drug prescription were found according to the linguistic areas. Conclusion. The control of hypertension in the Swiss hypertensive population is relatively high but still insufficient particularly among high cardiovascular risk patients such as diabetics and patients with impaired renal function. A further improvement of BP control could perhaps be achieved with a greater use of single pill combinations particularly in patients with complicated hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess antihypertensive therapy in private practice

Non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has proved to be very useful in evaluating hypertensive patients. However, most previous studies were performed in specialised centres. Here the results of two trials are presented in which private physicians used ambulatory BP monitoring to assess the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs. The results were very similar to those observed previously in specialised clinics. In the individual patient, the level of ambulatory recorded pressure could not be predicted based on BP readings taken at the doctor's office. Also, the BP response to antihypertensive therapy was more reproducible when evaluated by ambulatory BP monitoring than by the doctor. Thus, the use of noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring is also very appropriate in everyday practice for the management of hypertensive patients.

Assessment of drug compliance in patients with high blood pressure resistant to antihypertensive therapy.

The persistence of high blood pressure under antihypertensive treatment (resistant hypertension) entails an increased cardiovascular risk. It occurs in three of ten treated hypertensive patients, and has several possible contributing factors, notably insufficient therapeutic adherence. There are a number of ways to evaluate whether patients take their medication as prescribed. These include interviewing the patient, pill counting, prescription follow-up, assay of drugs in blood or urine, and use of electronic pill dispensers. None is perfect. However, the essential is to discuss with the patient the importance of complying with the treatment as soon as it is prescribed for the first time, and not waiting for the appearance of resistant hypertension. The measurement of blood pressure outside the medical office and the monitoring of adherence may help to identify patients in whom hypertension is truly resistant and so to tailor the measures required to improve the control of blood pressure in the most appropriate manner.

The need for combination antihypertensive therapy to reach target blood pressures: what has been learned from clinical practice and morbidity-mortality trials?

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension represents a cost-effective way for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications. To benefit maximally from antihypertensive treatment blood pressure (BP) should be brought to below 140/90 mmHg in every hypertensive patient, and even lower (&lt; 130/80 mmHg) if diabetes or renal disease co-exists. Most of the time such targets cannot be reached using monotherapies. This is especially true in patients who exhibit a high cardiovascular risk. The co-administration of two agents acting by different mechanisms considerably increases BP control. Such preparations are not only efficacious, but also well tolerated, and some fixed low-dose combinations have a tolerability profile similar to placebo. This is for instance the case for the preparation containing the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 mg) and the diuretic indapamide (0.625 mg), a fixed low-dose combination that has recently been shown in controlled interventional trials to be more effective than monotherapies in reducing albuminuria, regressing cardiac hypertrophy and improving macrovascular stiffness. Fixed-dose combinations are becoming more and more popular and are even proposed by current hypertension guidelines as a first-line option to treat hypertensive patients.

The return of increased blood pressure after discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment is associated with an impaired post-ischemic skin blood flow response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the post-ischemic skin blood flow response after withdrawal of antihypertensive therapy in hypertensive patients with normal blood pressure during treatment. DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty hypertensive patients (group A) with a normal clinic blood pressure (<140/ 90 mmHg) receiving antihypertensive treatment (any monotherapy; one pill per day for at least 6 months) had their treatment discontinued. Before medication withdrawal and 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks thereafter, the following measurements were made: clinic blood pressure, home blood pressure (three times per week, morning and evening) and skin blood flow response to a 5 min forearm arterial occlusion (using laser Doppler flowmetry). The patients were asked to perform an ambulatory blood pressure recording at any time if home blood pressure was > or =160/95 mmHg on two consecutive days, and treatment was initiated again, after determination of the skin hyperemic response, if daytime ambulatory blood pressure was > or =140/90 mmHg. The same studies were performed in 20 additional hypertensive individuals in whom antihypertensive treatment was not withdrawn (group B). The allocation of patients to groups A and B was random. RESULTS: The data fom 18 patients in group A who adhered strictly to the procedure were available for analysis. Seven of them had to start treatment again within the first 4 weeks of follow-up; four additional patients started treatment again during the next 8 weeks (group A1). The seven other patients remained untreated (group A2). The skin hyperemic response decreased significantly in patients in group A1 and returned to baseline values at the end of the study, when there were again receiving antihypertensive treatment. In patients in group A2 a significant attenuation of the hyperemic response was also observed. This impaired response was present even at the end of the 6 month follow-up, at which time the patients were still untreated but exhibited a significantly greater blood pressure than before drug discontinuation. The hyperemic response of patients who did not stop treatment (group B) did not change during the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a decrease in the postischemic skin blood flow response after withdrawal of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients. This impaired response may be due to the development of endothelial dysfunction, vascular remodeling, or both, and might contribute to the return of blood pressure to hypertensive values after withdrawal of antihypertensive therapy.

Stimulated sweating as a therapy to reduce interdialytic weight gain and improve potassium balance in chronic hemodialysis patients: a pilot study.

Controlling the extracellular volume in hemodialysis patients is a difficult task. The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of different methods of stimulated sweating to reduce mean interdialytic weight gain (IWG), to improve blood pressure regulation, and potassium/urea balance. Two center, crossover pilot study. In Lausanne, hemodialysis patients took four hot-water baths a week, 30 minutes each, on nondialysis days during 1 month. In Sfax, patients visited the local Hammam Center four times a week. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded, and weekly laboratory analysis was performed. Results were compared with a preceding 1-month control period. In Lausanne, five patients (all men, median age 55 years) participated. Bathing temperature was (mean ± standard deviation) 41.2 ± 3°C and sweating-induced weight loss 600 ± 500 g. Mean IWG (control vs. intervention period) decreased from 2.3 ± 0.9 to 1.8 ± 1 kg (P = 0.004), Systolic blood pressure from 139 ± 21 to 136 ± 22 mmHg (P = 0.4), and diastolic blood pressure form 79 ± 12 to 75 ± 13 mmHg (P = 0.08); antihypertensive therapy could be reduced from 2.8 ± 0.4 to 1.9 ± 0.5 antihypertensive drugs per patient (P = 0.01). In Sfax (n = 9, median age 46 years), weight loss per Hammam session was 420 ± 100 g. No differences were found in IWG or BP, but predialysis serum potassium level decreased from 5.9 ± 0.8 to 5.5 ± 0.9 mmol/L (P = 0.04) and urea from 26.9 ± 6 to 23.1 ± 6 mmol/L (P = 0.02). Hot-water baths appear to be a safe way to reduce IWG in selected hemodialysis patients. Hammam visits reduce serum potassium and urea levels, but not IWG. More data in larger patient groups are necessary before definite conclusion can be drawn.

Antihypertensive drug treatment changes in the general population: the CoLaus study.

BACKGROUND: Changes in antihypertensive drug treatment are paramount in the adequate management of patients with hypertension, still, there is little information regarding changes in antihypertensive drug treatment in Switzerland. Our aim was to assess those changes and associated factors in a population-based, prospective study. METHODS: Data from the population-based, CoLaus study, conducted among subjects initially aged 35-75 years and living in Lausanne, Switzerland. 772 hypertensive subjects (371 women) were followed for a median of 5.4 years. Data Subjects were defined as continuers (no change), switchers (one antihypertensive class replaced by another), combiners (one antihypertensive class added) and discontinuers (stopped treatment). The distribution and the factors associated with changes in antihypertensive drug treatment were assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, the prescription of diuretics decreased and of ARBs increased: at baseline, diuretics were taken by 46.9% of patients; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) by 44.7%, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) by 28.8%, beta-blockers (BB) by 28.0%, calcium channel blockers (CCB) by 18.9% and other antihypertensive drugs by 0.3%. At follow-up (approximately 5 years later), their corresponding percentages were 42.8%, 51.7%, 25.5%, 33.0% 20.7% and 1.0%. Among all participants, 54.4% (95% confidence interval: 50.8-58.0) were continuers, 26.9% (23.8-30.2) combiners, 12.7% (10.4-15.3) switchers and 6.0% (4.4-7.9) discontinuers. Combiners had higher systolic blood pressure values at baseline than the other groups (p < 0.05). Almost one third (30.6%) of switchers and 29.3% of combiners improved their blood pressure status at follow-up, versus 18.8% of continuers and 8.7% of discontinuers (p < 0.001). Conversely, almost one third (28.3%) of discontinuers became hypertensive (systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg), vs. 22.1% of continuers, 16.3% of switchers and 11.5% of combiners (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed baseline uncontrolled hypertension, ARBs, drug regimen (monotherapy/polytherapy) and overweight/obesity to be associated with changes in antihypertensive therapy. CONCLUSION: In Switzerland, ARBs have replaced diuretics as the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive drug. Uncontrolled hypertension, ARBs, drug regimen (monotherapy or polytherapy) and overweight/obesity are associated with changes in antihypertensive treatment.

Fixed-dose combinations as initial therapy for hypertension : a review of approved agents and a guide to patient selection.

Recent guidelines recommend initiation of antihypertensive therapy with fixed-dose combinations in high-risk patients because such patients usually need two or more blood pressure (BP)-lowering agents in order to normalize their BP. Agents that block the renin-angiotensin system (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists [angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs]) are preferred for the management of hypertension in most patients exhibiting subclinical target organ damage, or established cardiovascular or renal diseases. Unless contraindicated they should be one of the components of fixed-dose combinations, whereas the other component may be either a calcium channel antagonist or a thiazide diuretic. Fixed-dose combinations containing an ACE inhibitor or ARB plus a calcium channel antagonist appear particularly effective in preventing complications of coronary heart disease.