Literature DB >> 10212339

Superiority of home blood pressure measurements over office measurements for testing antihypertensive drugs.

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects on office blood pressure and home blood pressure of placebo and active drug administration.
DESIGN: After a 2-week wash-out period, patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension entered a 2-week single-blind placebo period and then a 4-week double-blind period. Patients were randomly assigned to be administered either 2 mg trandolapril once daily or its placebo in a 2:1 proportion. Office blood pressure was measured by a physician at the end of each period, using a mercury sphygmomanometer (mean of three consecutive measurements). Home blood pressure was measured during the last week of each period according to standard procedure carefully taught to each patient by the physician. Compliance was checked by using electronic pill boxes.
RESULTS: Data for 34 of the 44 patients who entered the study were eligible for analysis. Baseline systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure were significantly (P = 0.0001/P = 0.0001) higher for office blood pressure (161/101 mmHg) than they were for home blood pressure (145/93 mmHg). There was no statistically significant difference between the placebo and active-treatment groups at baseline. During the single-blind period, blood pressures measured at the office and at home did not change significantly. Office blood pressure decreased by 2.7 +/- 10 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and by 0.5 +/- 4 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure whereas home blood pressure increased by 0.8 +/- 6 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and by 0.7 +/- 4 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. During the double-blind period, office blood pressure fell significantly with trandolapril treatment (systolic by 10.2 +/- 12 mmHg, diastolic by 8.3 +/- 6 mmHg; P = 0.0005/0.0001, versus single-blind placebo period) but this decrease was not significantly different (P = 0.45/0.92) from the fall in members of the placebo group (systolic by 6.9 +/- 9 mmHg, diastolic by 8.0 +/-6 mmHg; P = 0.04/0.002, versus single-blind placebo period). Thus, no antihypertensive effect of trandolapril was demonstrated. The fall lin home blood pressure with trandolapril treatment was significant (systolic by 10.7 +/- 8 mmHg, diastolic by 5.8 +/- 5 mmHg; both P = 0.0001, versus single-blind placebo period) and was significantly greater (P = 0.0004/0.004) than the minimal change observed with placebo (systolic fell by 0.2 +/- 5mmHg, diastolic fell by 0.6 +/- 4 mmHg; P = 0.90/0.62, respectively, versus single-blind placebo period). The evening decrease in home blood pressure was similar to the morning decrease in home blood pressure in members of the trandolapril-treated group. The resulting morning:evening decrease in blood pressure ratio was 0.83 for diastolic blood pressure and 0.95 for systolic blood pressure. For the subgroup of responders, mean of individual ratios was 0.77 +/- 0.43 for diastolic blood pressure and 0.70 +/- 0.39 for systolic blood pressure.
CONCLUSION: The placebo effect observed with office blood pressure measurements does not occur with home blood pressure measurements. Expected treatment effect can alter a physician's blood pressure readings. The precision of measurements is greater with home blood pressure (there is a lower SD). Use of home blood pressure measurements increases the power of comparative trials, allowing one either to study fewer subjects or to detect a smaller difference in blood pressure.

Entities:  

Year:  1998        PMID: 10212339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Press Monit        ISSN: 1359-5237            Impact factor:   1.444


  9 in total

Review 1.  Clinical significance of home blood pressure and its possible practical application.

Authors:  Yutaka Imai
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 2.801

2.  Changes in home versus clinic blood pressure with antihypertensive treatments: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Joji Ishikawa; Deirdre J Carroll; Sujith Kuruvilla; Joseph E Schwartz; Thomas G Pickering
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2008-09-22       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 3.  The role of home BP monitoring: Answers to 10 common questions.

Authors:  Sonal J Patil; Richelle J Koopman; Jeffery Belden; Michael LeFevre
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2019 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 0.493

4.  Clinical implications of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring.

Authors:  Soon-Gil Kim
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 3.243

5.  Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society Of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association.

Authors:  Thomas G Pickering; Nancy Houston Miller; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Lawrence R Krakoff; Nancy T Artinian; David Goff
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 6.  Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension.

Authors:  Balraj S Heran; Michelle My Wong; Inderjit K Heran; James M Wright
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-10-08

7.  Antihypertensive drug effects according to the pretreatment self-measured home blood pressure: the HOMED-BP study.

Authors:  Hikari Sano; Azusa Hara; Kei Asayama; Seiko Miyazaki; Masahiro Kikuya; Yutaka Imai; Takayoshi Ohkubo
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-12-12       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  A systematic review of the effects of home blood pressure monitoring on medication adherence.

Authors:  Gbenga Ogedegbe; Antoinette Schoenthaler
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 9.  The applicability of home blood pressure measurement in clinical practice: a review of literature.

Authors:  Willem J Verberk; Abraham A Kroon; Heidi A Jongen-Vancraybex; Peter W de Leeuw
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2007
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.