Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension. METHODS: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified. INTERPRETATION: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation.

Factors influencing home blood pressure monitor ownership in a large clinical trial.

Home blood pressure monitor (HBPM) ownership prevalence and the factors that influence it are unclear. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with HBPM ownership among participants in the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) hypertension study. This study is a sub-analysis of the TIME study, a randomised trial investigating the effect of day-time versus night-time dosing of antihypertensive medication on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension. As part of the TIME study online registration process, participants were asked to indicate whether they owned an HBPM. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to determine factors associated with HBPM ownership. Of 21,104 randomised participants, 11,434 (54.2%) reported owning an HBPM. The mean age of all participants at enrolment was 67.7 ± 9.3 years, 12,134 (57.5%) were male, and 8892 (42.1%) reported a current or previous history of smoking. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of reporting HBPM owned include being male (OR:1.47; 95% CI 1.39-1.56) or residing in a less deprived socioeconomic region (IMD Decile 6-10) (OR:1.31; 95% CI 1.23-1.40). Participants with a history of diabetes mellitus (OR:0.74; 95% CI:0.64-0.86) or current smokers, compared to non-smokers, (OR:0.71; 95% CI:0.62-0.82) were less likely to report owning an HBPM. This study has identified important patient factors influencing HBPM ownership. Further qualitative research would be valuable to identify and explore potential patient-level barriers to engagement with self-monitoring of blood pressure.

A systematic review of loss of independence in Parkinson's disease.

Functional dependency (needing help with basic ADLs) is an important outcome in Parkinson's disease (PD). "Death or dependency", as opposed to being alive and independent, is a useful dichotomous indicator of poor outcome. We aimed to systematically review the progression to dependency in PD and what factors predicted development of dependency. Comprehensive searches were performed to identify observational studies of dependency in PD with follow-up of at least 3 years. Other forms of parkinsonism and highly selected cohorts were excluded. Descriptive analysis of included studies was performed and outcomes over time were plotted by type of cohort (inception/non-inception). Independent prognostic factors were identified. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis. Of 15,154 unique references identified, 14 studies were included. Most studies were of low quality. There was heterogeneity in definitions of dependency and the measured risk of dependency at similar time-points. Risk of dependency in inception studies was about 10-25 % at 5 years and about 20-50 % at 10 years; and risk of "death or dependency" in the inception studies was about 15-40 % at 5 years and about 35-70 % at ten years. More bradykinesia and older age were associated with more dependency, but there was little evidence for other prognostic factors. Few high-quality data on dependency are available. Heterogeneity in study populations, methodology and outcome reporting made data synthesis difficult. Few prognostic factors have been identified. Further data from representative inception studies are necessary to better understand the progression of dependency in PD.