The prognostic importance of the nocturnal systolic blood pressure (SBP) fall, adjusted for average 24-hour SBP levels, is unclear. The Ambulatory Blood Pressure Collaboration in Patients With Hypertension (ABC-H) examined this issue in a meta-analysis of 17 312 hypertensives from 3 continents. Risks were computed for the systolic night-to-day ratio and for different dipping patterns (extreme, reduced, and reverse dippers) relative to normal dippers. ABC-H investigators provided multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), with and without adjustment for 24-hour SBP, for total cardiovascular events (CVEs), coronary events, strokes, cardiovascular mortality, and total mortality. Average 24-hour SBP varied from 131 to 140 mm Hg and systolic night-to-day ratio from 0.88 to 0.93. There were 1769 total CVEs, 916 coronary events, 698 strokes, 450 cardiovascular deaths, and 903 total deaths. After adjustment for 24-hour SBP, the systolic night-to-day ratio predicted all outcomes: from a 1-SD increase, summary HRs were 1.12 to 1.23. Reverse dipping also predicted all end points: HRs were 1.57 to 1.89. Reduced dippers, relative to normal dippers, had a significant 27% higher risk for total CVEs. Risks for extreme dippers were significantly influenced by antihypertensive treatment ( P <0.001): untreated patients had increased risk of total CVEs (HR, 1.92), whereas treated patients had borderline lower risk (HR, 0.72) than normal dippers. For CVEs, heterogeneity was low for systolic night-to-day ratio and reverse/reduced dipping and moderate for extreme dippers. Quality of included studies was moderate to high, and publication bias was undetectable. In conclusion, in this largest meta-analysis of hypertensive patients, the nocturnal BP fall provided substantial prognostic information, independent of 24-hour SBP levels.

To determine which SBP measure best predicts cardiovascular events (CVEs) independently, a systematic review was conducted for cohorts with all patients diagnosed with hypertension, 1+ years follow-up, and coronary artery disease and stroke outcomes. Lead investigators provided ad hoc analyses for each cohort. Meta-analyses gave hazard ratios from clinic SBP (CSBP), daytime SBP (DSBP), and night-time SBP (NSBP). Coefficients of variation of SBP measured dispersion. Nine cohorts (n = 13,844) were from Europe, Brazil, and Japan. For sleep-wake SBP classification, seven cohorts used patient-specific information. Overall, NSBP's dispersion exceeded DSBP's dispersion by 22.6% with nonoverlapping confidence limits. Within all nine cohorts, dispersion for NSBP exceeded that for CSBP and DSBP. For each comparison, P = 0.004 that this occurred by chance. Considered individually, increases in NSBP, DSBP, and CSBP each predicted CVEs: hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) = 1.25 (1.22-1.29), 1.20 (1.15-1.26), and 1.11 (1.06-1.16), respectively. However, after simultaneous adjustment for all three SBPs, hazard ratios were 1.26 (1.20-1.31), 1.01 (0.94-1.08), and 1.00 (0.95-1.05), respectively. Cohorts with baseline antihypertensive treatment and cohorts with patient-specific information for night-day BP classification gave similar results. Within most cohorts, simultaneously adjusted hazard ratios were greater for NSBP than for DSBP and CSBP: P = 0.023 and 0.012, respectively, that this occurred by chance. In hypertensive patients, NSBP had greater dispersion than DSBP and CSBP in all cohorts. On simultaneous adjustment, compared with DSBP and CSBP, increased NSBP independently predicted higher CVEs in most cohorts, and, overall, NSBP independently predicted CVEs, whereas CSBP and DSBP lost their predictive ability entirely.

To determine prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension and the 24-h sodium excretion (24h-UNa) in the Portuguese adult population and to examine their changes from a similar study done in 2003. A population-based cross-sectional survey conducted in 2011-2012. A multistage-stratified (by age and sex) sampling method was used to select a representative sample of the 18-90-year-old population yielding 3720 participants (52.6% women, 97.1% Caucasians). Hypertension was defined as a SBP of at least 140 mmHg or DBP of at least 90 mmHg [average of 2-3 blood pressure (BP) measurements by trained observers with OMRON M6] or reported knowledge or treatment with antihypertensive drugs at the first visit (V1). A complete clinical information was obtained with a standard questionnaire. This procedure was repeated 10-15 days after visit 2 (V2) and 24-h urinary sample was collected for 24h-UNa, 24-h potassium excretion and creatinine excretion. The overall prevalence of hypertension at V1 was 42.2% (44.4% in men, 40.2% in women) (42.1% in 2003). The age-specific prevalence of hypertension was 6.8, 46.9 and 74.9% in people below 35 years, 35-64 years and above 64 years. Comorbidities were 2.2-6.3 times more common in hypertensive patients vs. normotensive individuals. Overall, among the hypertensive patients, 76.6% were aware of the hypertension condition, 74.9% were treated and 42.5% were controlled (BP <140/90 mmHg), that is, respectively, 1.7, 1.9 and 3.8 times higher vs. data in 2003, with lower values in men vs. women and younger vs. older people. Global mean BP was 127.4/74.6 ± 17.7/10.5 vs. 134.7/80.4 ± 21.2/14.1 mmHg in 2003. From V1 to V2, control of hypertension increased on average by 14.8%. Multivariate analysis showed that age and BMI were independently associated with prevalence of hypertension. 24h-UNa (84% valid urinary samples) was 182.5 ± 64.7 mmol/day (10.7 g salt/day) and 24-h potassium excretion 75.2 ± 26.1 mmol/day. 24h-UNa was higher in patients with hypertension than in normotensive individuals (185.4 ± 64.8 vs. 177.8 ± 64.5 mmol/day; P < 0.02) and correlated with SBP (r = 0.05), age (r = 0.08) and BMI (r = 0.10) (P < 0.01). Hypertension prevalence among Portuguese adults remained stable in the past decade, but proportions of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension improved significantly. Salt intake is still high being almost double the WHO recommendations.

Research from JAMA — An Educational Intervention to Improve Physician Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions — A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial — ContextData on the adverse effects of newly marketed drugs are limited. Voluntary reporting is an important part of postmarketing surveillance but is underused by physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of educational outreach visits for improving adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by physicians.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA cluster-randomized controlled trial covering all National Health System physicians in the north of Portugal, with intervention in March 2004 through July 2004, and 13 to 16 months of follow-up. A total of 1388 physicians were assigned in 4 spatial clusters to the intervention group, and 5063 were assigned in 11 clusters to the control group.InterventionOne-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study.Main Outcome MeasuresChange in total number of reported ADRs and number of serious, high-causality, unexpected, and new-drug-related ADRs, using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for baseline ADR reporting, age, specialty, and work setting.ResultsAt baseline, ADR reporting rates (per 1000 physician-years) did not differ significantly between the intervention groups and the control groups in reporting ADRs overall (7.6 vs 11.3), nor did they differ significantly by category: serious, 4.3 vs 6.0; high-causality, 5.4 vs 7.6; unexpected, 1.6 vs 3.5; and new-drug-related ADRs, 3.7 vs 3.8. (P>.05 for all comparisons). The control group had no significant increase in ADR reports during follow-up. The adjusted increase in ADR reporting rates attributable to intervention was 90.19 for total ADRs (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.51-125.87; relative risk [RR], 10.23; 95% CI, 3.81-27.51), 30.16 for serious ADRs (95% CI, 18.84-41.47; RR, 6.32; 95% CI, 2.09-19.16), 64.90 for high-causality ADRs (95% CI, 38.38-91.42; RR, 8.75; 95% CI, 3.05-25.07), 28.04 for unexpected ADRs (95% CI, 16.25-39.83; RR, 30.21; 95% CI, 4.54-200.84), and 42.17 for new-drug-related ADRs (95% CI, 21.58-62.76; RR, 8.05; 95% CI, 2.10 -30.83). The greatest difference occurred during the first 4 months after intervention, but differences remained statistically significant for 12 months.ConclusionA targeted outreach program may improve high-quality reporting of ADRs among physicians.