Hypertension remains the most common modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet hypertension control rates remain dismal. Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring has the potential to improve hypertension control. The purpose of this review was to quantify both the magnitude and mechanisms of benefit of home BP monitoring on BP reduction. Using a structured review, studies were selected if they reported either changes in BP or percentage of participants achieving a pre-established BP goal between randomized groups using home-based and office-based BP measurements. A random-effects model was used to estimate the magnitude of benefit and relative risk. The search yielded 37 randomized controlled trials with 9446 participants that contributed data for this meta-analysis. Compared with clinic-based measurements (control group), systolic BP improved with home-based BP monitoring (-2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.24, -1.02); diastolic BP also showed improvement (-1.68 mm Hg; 95% CI, -2.58, -0.79). Reductions in home BP monitoring-based therapy were greater when telemonitoring was used. Home BP monitoring led to more frequent antihypertensive medication reductions (relative risk, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.32 to 3.11]) and was associated with less therapeutic inertia defined as unchanged medication despite elevated BP (relative risk for unchanged medication, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]). Compared with clinic BP monitoring alone, home BP monitoring has the potential to overcome therapeutic inertia and lead to a small but significant reduction in systolic and diastolic BP. Hypertension control with home BP monitoring can be enhanced further when accompanied by plans to monitor and treat elevated BP such as through telemonitoring.

Role of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia and Improving Hypertension Control A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

All national guidelines for the management of hypertension recommend angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as an initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy. The eight available ARBs have variable clinical efficacy when used for control of hypertension. Additive blood pressure-lowering effects have been demonstrated when ARBs are combined with thiazide diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, augmenting hypertension control. Furthermore, therapeutic use of ARBs goes beyond their antihypertensive effects, with evidence-based benefits in heart failure and diabetic renal disease particularly among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-intolerant patients. On the other hand, combining renin–angiotensin system blocking agents, a formerly common practice among medical subspecialists focusing on the management of hypertension, has ceased, as there is not only no evidence of cardiovascular benefit but also modest evidence of harm, particularly with regard to renal dysfunction. ARBs are very well tolerated as monotherapy, as well as in combination with other antihypertensive medications, which improve adherence to therapy and have become a mainstay in the treatment of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.

The Comparative Efficacy and Safety of the Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in the Management of Hypertension and Other Cardiovascular Diseases

ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of the antihypertensive activity of the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists (ARB).MethodsStudies in which blood pressure (BP) was measured using ambulatory BP monitoring for at least 24 h were collected from MEDLINE. Data for each treatment group, ARB, pla

Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Blood pressure lowering drugs are usually evaluated in short term trials determining the absolute blood pressure reduction during trough and the duration of the antihypertensive effect after single or multiple dosing. A lack of persistence with treatment has however been shown to be linked to a worse cardiovascular prognosis. This review explores the blood pressure reduction and persistence with treatment of antihypertensive drugs and the cost consequences of poor persistence with pharmaceutical interventions in arterial hypertension. We have searched the literature for data on blood pressure lowering effects of different antihypertensive drug classes and agents, on persistence with treatment, and on related costs. Persistence was measured as patients' medication possession rate. Results are presented in the form of a systematic review. Angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARBs) have a competitive blood pressure lowering efficacy compared with ACE-inhibitors (ACEi) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), beta-blockers (BBs) and diuretics. 8 studies describing the persistence with treatment were identified. Patients were more persistent on ARBs than on ACEi and CCBs, BBs and diuretics. Thus the product of blood pressure lowering and persistence was higher on ARBs than on any other drug class. Although the price per tablet of more recently developed drugs (ACEi, ARBs) is higher than that of older ones (diuretics and BBs), the newer drugs result in a more favourable cost to effect ratio when direct drug costs and indirect costs are also considered. To evaluate drugs for the treatment of hypertension several key variables including the blood pressure lowering effect, side effects, compliance/persistence with treatment, as well as drug costs and direct and indirect costs of medical care have to be considered. ARBs, while nominally more expensive when drug costs are considered only, provide substantial cost savings and may prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality based on the more complete antihypertensive coverage. This makes ARBs an attractive choice for long term treatment of hypertension.

https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/23608/1/1475-2840-8-18.pdf

Blood pressure reduction, persistence and costs in the evaluation of antihypertensive drug treatment – a review

Irbesartan (Avapro, Aprovel) is a potent and selective angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor antagonist indicated for use in patients with hypertension, including those with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy. Once-daily administration of irbesartan provided 24-hour control of blood pressure (BP). In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension irbesartan was as effective as enalapril, atenolol and amlodipine, and more effective than valsartan in terms of absolute reduction in BP and response rates. Irbesartan produced a greater reduction in diastolic BP at trough than once-daily losartan, but had a smaller effect than olmesartan; the reduction in systolic BP achieved with irbesartan was similar or greater than that with losartan and similar to that seen with olmesartan. The combination of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide produced additive effects on BP reduction. Irbesartan also induced regression of left ventricular mass in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. In two large studies (IRbesartan MicroAlbuminuria type 2 diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients [IRMA 2] and the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial [IDNT]) irbesartan exerted a renoprotective effect in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes at both the early and later stages of diabetic nephropathy. The renoprotective effect was at least partly independent of the BP-lowering effect. In the IRMA 2 trial, the proportion of patients progressing to overt nephropathy was significantly lower for recipients of irbesartan 300mg once daily than placebo. In patients with overt nephropathy in the IDNT, irbesartan 300mg once daily provided significantly greater renoprotection than amlodipine 10mg once daily or placebo. The relative risk of doubling of serum creatinine was significantly lower with irbesartan than amlodipine or placebo. Irbesartan is well tolerated in hypertensive patients, including those with type 2 diabetes and incipient or overt nephropathy. The overall incidence of adverse events with irbesartan was similar to that with placebo. Irbesartan was associated with a lower incidence of cough than enalapril and was not associated with ankle oedema or with any clinically significant drug interactions. In conclusion, irbesartan is a well tolerated and effective antihypertensive agent. It also slows the progression of renal disease in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes at both the early and later stages of diabetic nephropathy. Thus, irbesartan is a valuable agent in the management of patients with these indications.

Irbesartan: A review of its use in hypertension and in the management of Diabetic Nephropathy

BACKGROUND The primary objective of this study was to compare the change from baseline in mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) at 24 h post dose (trough measurement) after 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan or valsartan in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Secondary objectives included comparing the mean changes from baseline in systolic ABP at trough; 24-h ABP; morning and night-time ABP; self-measured systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP); and office-measured SBP and DBP at trough. DESIGN After a 3-week, single blind, placebo lead-in period, 426 subjects were randomized to receive either irbesartan 150 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. METHODS Ambulatory blood pressure measurements were obtained at baseline and at week 8. Self-measured morning and evening DBP and SBP readings were obtained at home over a 7-day period at baseline and at week 8. Office-measured seated DBP and SBP measurements were obtained at trough, at baseline, and at week 8. RESULTS Irbesartan demonstrated significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean change from baseline in diastolic ABP at trough (-6.73 versus -4.84 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.035). Irbesartan produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean systolic ABP at trough (-11.62 versus -7.5 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for mean 24-h diastolic ABP (-6.38 versus -4.82 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.023) and systolic ABP (-10.24 versus -7.76 mmHg; P < 0.01). Irbesartan also produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for office-measured seated DBP (-10.46 versus 7.28 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-16.23 versus -9.96 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for self-measured morning DBP (-6.28 versus -3.75 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-10.21 versus -6.97 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01). Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION Irbesartan was more effective than valsartan in reducing DBP and SBP at trough and in providing greater overall 24-h blood pressure-lowering efficacy.

An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and valsartan.

Peter van Rossum

Papers

An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and valsartan.