ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: White coat effect (WCE) and white coat hypertension (WCH) are hardly both compared in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of repeated measures of systolic blood pressure (SBP) to dissociate various forms of white-coat interactions. METHODS: An open cross-sectional study on consecutive patients treated or not for high blood pressure was made in family physicians' offices. SBP was measured 5 times by an electronic device. Measurements were performed before (SBP1) and after (SBP5) the office visit by a lay assistant and at the beginning (SBP2), middle (SBP3) and end (SBP4) of visit, by the family physician. Home BP (HBPM) was measured from 3 consecutive days by the patient. WCE and office WCE tail (OWCET) were defined, respectively, as a 10 mmHg SBP increase or decrease between SBP2-SBP1 or SBP4-SBP2. WCH was considered when HBPM was normal (SBP < 135 mmHg) at home and high during the SBP2 office visit. RESULTS: Two hundred five patients (134 women versus 71 men, ratio 1.9, aged 59.8±15.7 years) were recruited. In categorical terms, there were 51 patients (25%) who presented with WCE, OWCET was seen in 121 patients (62%) and 47 patients (23%) had WCH. Only 36 patients (18%) presented both OWCET and WCE and 32 (16%) had both OWCET and WCH. The receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) of OWCET in diagnosing WCE or WCH were respectively 0.67 (p<0.0001) and 0.53 (NS). CONCLUSION: Thus, OWCET was predictive of WCE and not of WCH and it is worthwhile to be measured in the family physician office.
Subject(s)
Hypertension , White Coat Hypertension , Male , Humans , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hypertension/diagnosis , White Coat Hypertension/diagnosis , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryABSTRACT
AIMS OF STUDY: Since January 2017, olmesartan-based treatment are no longer reimbursed by French national health insurance. Indeed, enteropathy cases, potentially lethal, were described in relation to this medication. Objectives were to study the impact of stopping the reimbursement of olmesartan for hypertensive patients. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A descriptive retrospective study was performed with data from two primary care facilities in French occidental Normandy. To evaluate the blood pressure control, different blood pressure measurements were considered during the year before (period 1) and the year after (period 2) potential stopping olmesartan. A medico-economic analysis was also realized. RESULTS: From June 2015 to July 2017, 107 hypertensive patients treated by olmesartan were included. Among them, 47 patients (44%) had an antihypertensive monotherapy. olmesartan had been mainly switched by another sartan (75%, 80/107) including valsartan (59%, 47/80). Mean blood pressures during period 1 and period 2 were not statistically different. Moreover, 83% of patients were initially controlled with olmesartan and 81% after switching medication (P=0,86). The use of olmesartan generated an additional cost of 58% compared to the other drugs that replaced it during period 2. CONCLUSIONS: Stopping olmesartan reimbursement didn't seem to have a significant impact on blood pressure control of hypertensive patients while its cost is significant. In addition to potential serious side effects, olmesartan has not shown any improvement in cardiovascular morbi-mortality.
