Literature DB >> 20047624

Comparison of office, ambulatory, and home blood pressure antihypertensive response to atenolol and hydrochlorthiazide.

Amber L Beitelshees1, Yan Gong, Kent R Bailey, Stephen T Turner, Arlene B Chapman, Gary L Schwartz, John G Gums, Eric Boerwinkle, Julie A Johnson.   

Abstract

Office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) demonstrate variable associations with outcomes. The authors sought to compare office BP (OBP), home BP (HBP), and ambulatory BP (ABP) for measuring responses to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), atenolol, and their combination. After completing washout, eligible patients were randomized to atenolol 50 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg daily. Doses were doubled after 3 weeks and the alternate drug was added after 6 weeks if BP was >120/70 mm Hg (chosen to allow maximum opportunity to assess genetic associations with dual BP therapy in the parent study). OBP (in triplicate), HBP (twice daily for 5 days), and 24-hour ABP were measured at baseline, after monotherapy, and after combination therapy. BP responses were compared between OBP, HBP, and ABP for each monotherapy and combination therapy. In 418 patients, OBP overestimated BP response compared with HBP, with an average 4.6 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP (P<.0001) and 2.1 mm Hg greater reduction in diastolic BP (P<.0001) across all therapies. Results were similar for atenolol and HCTZ monotherapy. ABP response was more highly correlated with HBP response (r=0.58) than with OBP response (r=0.47; P=.04). In the context of a randomized clinical trial, the authors have identified significant differences in HBP, OBP, and ABP methods of measuring BP response to atenolol and HCTZ monotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20047624      PMCID: PMC2841560          DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2009.00185.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)        ISSN: 1524-6175            Impact factor:   3.738


  13 in total

1.  Discordant beta-blocker effects on clinic, ambulatory, resting, and exercise hemodynamics in patients with hypertension.

Authors:  Amber L Beitelshees; Issam Zineh; Hossein N Yarandi; Daniel F Pauly; Julie A Johnson
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.705

2.  Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study.

Authors:  Roberto Sega; Rita Facchetti; Michele Bombelli; Giancarlo Cesana; Giovanni Corrao; Guido Grassi; Giuseppe Mancia
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-04-04       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Lack of agreement between office and ambulatory blood pressure responses to hydrochlorothiazide.

Authors:  Javier Daniel Finkielman; Gary L Schwartz; Arlene B Chapman; Eric Boerwinkle; Stephen T Turner
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.689

4.  Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring versus self-measurement of blood pressure at home: correlation with target organ damage.

Authors:  Valérie Gaborieau; Nicolas Delarche; Philippe Gosse
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.844

5.  Relation between initial blood pressure and its fall with treatment.

Authors:  J S Gill; A V Zezulka; D G Beevers; P Davies
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-03-09       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure for the assessment of anti hypertensive efficacy in clinical trials: insights from the Val-Syst Study.

Authors:  Paolo Palatini; Francesca Dorigatti; Amedeo Mugellini; Vitaliano Spagnuolo; Natale Varì; Roberto Ferrara; Federico Bertocchi
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.393

Review 7.  Prognostic value of home blood pressure measurement.

Authors:  George S Stergiou; Petros G Kalogeropoulos; Nikos M Baibas
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.444

8.  Home blood pressure is as reliable as ambulatory blood pressure in predicting target-organ damage in hypertension.

Authors:  George S Stergiou; Katerina K Argyraki; Ioannis Moyssakis; Stylianos E Mastorantonakis; Apostolos D Achimastos; Vasilios G Karamanos; Leonidas G Roussias
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.689

9.  Pharmacogenomics of antihypertensive drugs: rationale and design of the Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR) study.

Authors:  Julie A Johnson; Eric Boerwinkle; Issam Zineh; Arlene B Chapman; Kent Bailey; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; John Gums; R Whit Curry; Yan Gong; Amber L Beitelshees; Gary Schwartz; Stephen T Turner
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Prognostic influence of office and ambulatory blood pressures in resistant hypertension.

Authors:  Gil F Salles; Claudia R L Cardoso; Elizabeth S Muxfeldt
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-11-24
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Home Blood Pressure Monitoring.

Authors:  Jacob George; Thomas MacDonald
Journal:  Eur Cardiol       Date:  2015-12

2.  Night blood pressure responses to atenolol and hydrochlorothiazide in black and white patients with essential hypertension.

Authors:  Arlene B Chapman; George Cotsonis; Vishal Parekh; Gary L Schwartz; Yan Gong; Kent R Bailey; Stephen T Turner; John G Gums; Amber L Beitelshees; Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff; Eric Boerwinkle; Julie A Johnson
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.689

3.  Effects of genetic variation in H3K79 methylation regulatory genes on clinical blood pressure and blood pressure response to hydrochlorothiazide.

Authors:  Julio D Duarte; Issam Zineh; Ben Burkley; Yan Gong; Taimour Y Langaee; Stephen T Turner; Arlene B Chapman; Eric Boerwinkle; John G Gums; Rhonda M Cooper-Dehoff; Amber L Beitelshees; Kent R Bailey; Roger B Fillingim; Bruce C Kone; Julie A Johnson
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 5.531

4.  Power to identify a genetic predictor of antihypertensive drug response using different methods to measure blood pressure response.

Authors:  Stephen T Turner; Gary L Schwartz; Arlene B Chapman; Amber L Beitelshees; John G Gums; Rhonda M Cooper-Dehoff; Eric Boerwinkle; Julie A Johnson; Kent R Bailey
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 5.531

Review 5.  Does home blood pressure monitoring improve patient outcomes? A systematic review comparing home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure control and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Tonya L Breaux-Shropshire; Eric Judd; Lee A Vucovich; Toneyell S Shropshire; Sonal Singh
Journal:  Integr Blood Press Control       Date:  2015-07-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.