The aim of this study was to evaluate the cardiovascular outcome in apparently responder hypertensive patients with responder and masked hypertension, and in apparently resistant hypertensive patients with false and true resistant hypertension. The occurrence of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events was evaluated in 340 patients with responder hypertension (clinic blood pressure [BP] 135 or 85 mm Hg), 146 with false resistant hypertension (clinic BP >or=140 or 90 mm Hg and daytime BP or=140 or 90 mm Hg and daytime BP >135 or 85 mm Hg). During follow-up period (4.98 +/- 2.9 years), the event-rate per 100 patient-years was 0.87, 2.42, 1.2, and 4.1 in patients with responder, masked, false resistant, and true resistant hypertension, respectively. After adjustment for several covariates, including clinic BP (forced into the model), Cox regression analysis showed that cardiovascular risk was significantly higher in masked hypertension (masked versus responder hypertension, relative risk [RR] 2.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-4.7, P < .05) and in true resistant hypertension (true resistant versus responder hypertension, RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.02-8.41, P < .05), whereas there was no significant difference between false resistant and responder hypertension. This study shows that patients with masked hypertension are at higher risk than those with responder hypertension, and that those with false resistant hypertension are at lower risk than those with true resistant hypertension. Ambulatory BP monitoring should be performed in treated hypertensive patients to obtain a better prognostic stratification.

Objective Low-grade intestinal inflammation plays a role in the pathophysiology of IBS. In this trial, we aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of mesalazine in patients with IBS. Design We conducted a phase 3, multicentre, tertiary setting, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with Rome III confirmed IBS. Patients were randomly assigned to either mesalazine, 800 mg, or placebo, three times daily for 12 weeks, and were followed for additional 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was satisfactory relief of abdominal pain/discomfort for at least half of the weeks of the treatment period. The key secondary endpoint was satisfactory relief of overall IBS symptoms. Supportive analyses were also performed classifying as responders patients with a percentage of affirmative answers of at least 75% or >75% of time. Results A total of 185 patients with IBS were enrolled from 21 centres. For the primary endpoint, the responder patients were 68.6% in the mesalazine group versus 67.4% in the placebo group (p=0.870; 95% CI −12.8 to 15.1). In explorative analyses, with the 75% rule or >75% rule, the percentage of responders was greater in the mesalazine group with a difference over placebo of 11.6% (p=0.115; 95% CI −2.7% to 26.0%) and 5.9% (p=0.404; 95% CI −7.8% to 19.4%), respectively, although these differences were not significant. For the key secondary endpoint, overall symptoms improved in the mesalazine group and reached a significant difference of 15.1% versus placebo (p=0.032; 95% CI 1.5% to 28.7%) with the >75% rule. Conclusions Mesalazine treatment was not superior than placebo on the study primary endpoint. However, a subgroup of patients with IBS showed a sustained therapy response and benefits from a mesalazine therapy. Trial registration number ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT00626288.