Prevalence of Masked Hypertension in Subjects Treated with Antihypertensive Drugs as Assessed by Morning versus Evening Home Blood Pressure Measurements: the J-HOME study.

To investigate the relationship between morning and evening home blood pressure (BP) measurements to make a diagnosis of masked hypertension, we collected information on the characteristics of 3,303 essential hypertensive outpatients receiving antihypertensive medication in Japan using a physician, self-administered questionnaire. All patients were asked to measure their home BP once every morning and once every evening for two weeks. Morning and evening home BP values of each patient were defined as the average of all morning and all evening home BP values, respectively. The mean BP values of all study subjects were 142.8/80.6 mmHg for office BP, 139.8/81.8 mmHg for morning home BP, 133.7/76.9 mmHg for evening home BP, and 136.8/79.3 mmHg for the average of the morning and evening home BPs. Masked hypertension was defined as an office BP < 140/90 mmHg and a home BP > or = 135/85 mmHg. The prevalence of masked hypertension diagnosed using morning home BP (23.1%) was higher than that diagnosed by evening home BP (14.7%); the prevalence was 19.0% when diagnosed using the average of the morning and evening home BPs. Among the 1,386 patients with a normal office BP, the diagnosis of masked hypertension based on morning and evening home BP values differed in 28.8% of patients for systolic BP and 20.9% for diastolic BP (kappa coefficient = 0.43). The present study showed that the prevalence of masked hypertension was underestimated when the diagnosis of masked hypertension was made on the basis of evening home BP.

Control of home heart rate and home blood pressure levels in treated patients with hypertension: the J-HOME study.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, it was found that resting heart rate (HR) measured at home (home HR), as well as self-measured blood pressure (BP) at home (home BP), was a strong predictor of the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality in the general Japanese population. It was also reported that home BP levels were not adequately controlled in hypertensive patients. Little information, however, is available on the current status of home HR control in treated patients with hypertension. The objective of this study was to examine the current status of home HR control and home BP control among treated patients with hypertension. METHODS: Home HR and BP were measured using a self-monitored BP measuring device. Morning home HR and BP were obtained in 3183 patients and evening home HR and BP were obtained in 3106 patients. On the basis of an earlier study, we defined a home HR value of >or=70 beats/min as 'high home HR'. RESULTS: The mean home HR value was 67.2+/-9.1 beats/min in the morning and 69.6+/-9.2 beats/min in the evening. Of the 3183 patients, 35.7% had a high home HR in the morning and 46.7% of the 3106 patients had a high home HR in the evening. The prevalence of patients with a high home HR and a controlled home BP (<135/85 mmHg) was 11.3% in the morning and 24.2% in the evening. CONCLUSION: Resting home HR control and home BP control were inadequate.

Characteristics of resistant hypertension determined by self-measured blood pressure at home and office blood pressure measurements: the J-HOME study.

OBJECTIVES: To diagnose resistant hypertension using self-measured blood pressure (BP) at home and office BP, and to evaluate the characteristics of resistant hypertensive patients. METHODS: The subjects were 528 hypertensive patients taking at least three or more different antihypertensive drugs. Subjects were classified into four groups (controlled hypertension, isolated office resistant hypertension, isolated home resistant hypertension and sustained resistant hypertension) on the basis of the cut-off values of home BP (135/85 mmHg) and office BP (140/90 mmHg). The relationship between each resistant hypertension group and various factors was analysed using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 528 patients, 17.8% were classified with controlled hypertension, 16.1% with isolated office resistant hypertension, 23.5% with isolated home resistant hypertension and 42.6% with sustained resistant hypertension. The presence of hypercholesterolemia was found to have a significant and independent association with isolated office resistant hypertension. Higher office systolic blood pressure (SBP), a past history of ischaemic heart disease, and a lower prescription rate of potassium-sparing diuretics were found to have a significant and independent association with isolated home resistant hypertension. Patients with sustained resistant hypertension had a significantly lower prescription rate of potassium-sparing diuretics than those with controlled hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that resistant hypertension is mediated at least partly by the white-coat effect. Home BP measurements and other relevant factors associated with resistant hypertension, such as relatively higher office SBP, type of drugs prescribed, and cardiovascular complications, should be taken into account for the diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension.

The current status of home and office blood pressure control among hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus: the Japan Home Versus Office Blood Pressure Measurement Evaluation (J-HOME) study.

Although self-measured blood pressure (BP) at home (HBP) has become popular in clinical practice, little information is available regarding the proportion of diabetic patients with properly controlled HBP. We evaluated the status of HBP control in diabetic hypertensives. HBP control status was cross-sectionally evaluated among 3400 essential hypertensives taking antihypertensive treatment. Of these, 466 (14%) had diabetes. Physicians evaluated the subjects' HBP control as "poor", "fairly good", or "excellent" using a self-administered questionnaire. When the HBP threshold in diabetic patients was set tentatively at 130/80 mmHg or 135/85 mmHg, HBP was properly controlled in 18% or 30% of diabetic patients, respectively. The same trend was observed in office BP. The average number of drugs prescribed for diabetic patients was 2.0 drugs. In the majority of diabetic patients with uncontrolled BP, the BP control status in two-thirds of those was evaluated as "excellent" or "fairly good" by their physicians. In Japan, HBP and office BP were not adequately controlled in most diabetic hypertensives. The main reason for this would appear to be a lack of intensive treatment and a lack of recognition by physicians that their patients' BP was insufficiently controlled.

Current usage of diuretics among hypertensive patients in Japan: the Japan Home versus Office Blood Pressure Measurement Evaluation (J-HOME) study.

In the Japan Home versus Office Blood Pressure Measurement Evaluation (J-HOME) study, we examined the current situation with respect to the prescription of diuretics, including the prevalence of diuretic treatment and the dosages used for patients with essential hypertension in primary care settings. Of the 3,400 hypertensive patients included in the study, 315 (9.3%) patients (mean age: 66.9+/-10.4 years; males: 43.5%) were prescribed diuretics. Compared with patients who were not using diuretics, those who were using diuretics were more obese and had more complications. The most commonly prescribed diuretic among the 331 prescriptions in the 315 diuretic users was trichlormethiazide (44%), followed by indapamide (15%) and spironolactone (14%). Among patients being treated with diuretics, monotherapy was used in only 5% of patients; in the majority of patients combination therapy including diuretics (95%) was used. Relatively low dosages of diuretics were generally used. There was a difference between the actual dosages prescribed and those recommended by the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines or the product information approved in Japan. Compared with previous estimates of the prevalence of diuretic use in hypertensives in Japan (4.0-5.4%), the rate in the J-HOME study (9.3%) was higher. This may be attributable at least in part to the results of the many published, large-scale intervention trials confirming the clinical significance of diuretics. Although a relatively high dosage is recommended in the diuretic product information and in the JSH guidelines, dosages of diuretics should be reconsidered in Japan.

Prevalence of masked uncontrolled and treated white-coat hypertension defined according to the average of morning and evening home blood pressure value: from the Japan Home versus Office Measurement Evaluation Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of masked uncontrolled and treated white-coat hypertension defined according to the average of morning and evening home blood pressure values. METHODS: The study population consisted of 3303 essential hypertensive outpatients receiving antihypertensive treatment in Japan. Information on the characteristics of the patients was collected by a physician's self-administrated questionnaire. The office blood pressure value was calculated as the average of the four readings in two visits. All patients were asked to measure their blood pressure once every morning and once every evening. In the study, we included patients with at least three measurements in the morning and in the evening, respectively. The average of all home blood pressure values was taken as the home blood pressure value. RESULTS: The mean value of home systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 136.8/79.3 mmHg, and the mean value of office systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 142.8/80.6 mmHg. Of the 3303 patients, 758 (23.0%) had controlled hypertension (home <135/85 mmHg and office <140/90 mmHg), 628 (19.0%) had masked uncontrolled hypertension (home > or =135/85 mmHg and office <140/90 mmHg), 640 (19.4%) had treated white-coat hypertension (home <135/85 mmHg and office > or =140/90 mmHg), and 1277 (38.7%) had uncontrolled hypertension (home > or =135/85 mmHg and office > or =140/90 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Treated white-coat hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension were often observed in clinical settings. Physicians need to understand the prevalence of such patients to prevent inadequate diagnosis and treatment in them.