Lessons learned from Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

Comparison of office, home and ambulatory blood pressure measurements in hypertensive and suspected hypertensive SWICOS participants

PURPOSE

Hypertension should be confirmed with the use of home BP measurement (HBPM) or 24h ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). The aim of our study was to compare measurements obtained by OBPM, HBPM and ABPM in individuals with elevated OBPM participating in the population-based Swiss Longitudinal Cohort Study (SWICOS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Participants with OBPM ≥140/90 mmHg assessed their BP using HBPM and ABPM. The cut-off for hypertension was ≥135/85 mmHg for HBPM, ≥130/80 mmHg for ABPM. White-coat hypertension (WCH) was defined as normal HPBM and ABPM in participants not taking antihypertensive drugs. Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as hypertension in HBPM or ABPM despite antihypertensive treatment.

RESULTS

Of 72 hypertensive subjects with office BP ≥140/90 mmHg and valid measurements of HBPM and ABPM, 39 were males (aged 62.8 ± 11.8y), 33 were females (aged 57.4 ± 14.2y). Hypertension was confirmed with HBPM and ABPM in 17 participants (24%), with ABPM only in 24 further participants (33%), and with HBPM only in 2 further participants (3%). Participants who had hypertension according to ABPM but not HBPM were younger (59 ± 11 y versus 67 ± 16 y; p < 0.001) and more frequently still working (83% versus 23%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of WCH was 28%. Among the 32 subjects taking antihypertensive drugs, uncontrolled hypertension was found in 49%.

CONCLUSION

This population-based study found a high prevalence of WCH and potential uncontrolled hypertension among individuals with elevated OBPM. This study, therefore, supports the ESH recommendations of complementing OBPM by ABPM or HBPM. The use of HBPM instead of ABPM for the confirmation of hypertension in individuals with elevated OBPM might lead to underdiagnosis and uncontrolled hypertension, in particular in the younger working population. In these individuals, this study suggests using ABPM instead of HBPM.

The Na+/H+ Exchanger 3 in the Intestines and the Proximal Tubule of the Kidney: Localization, Physiological Function, and Key Roles in Angiotensin II-Induced Hypertension

The sodium (Na⁺)/hydrogen (H⁺) exchanger 3 (NHE3) is one of the most important Na⁺/H⁺ antiporters in the small intestines of the gastrointestinal tract and the proximal tubules of the kidney. The roles of NHE3 in the regulation of intracellular pH and acid-base balance have been well established in cellular physiology using in vitro techniques. Localized primarily on the apical membranes in small intestines and proximal tubules, the key action of NHE3 is to facilitate the entry of luminal Na⁺ and the extrusion of intracellular H⁺ from intestinal and proximal tubule tubular epithelial cells. NHE3 is, directly and indirectly, responsible for absorbing the majority of ingested Na⁺ from small and large intestines and reabsorbing >50% of filtered Na⁺ in the proximal tubules of the kidney. However, the roles of NHE3 in the regulation of proximal tubular Na⁺ transport in the integrative physiological settings and its contributions to the basal blood pressure regulation and angiotensin II (Ang II)-induced hypertension have not been well studied previously due to the lack of suitable animal models. Recently, novel genetically modified mouse models with whole-body, kidney-specific, or proximal tubule-specific deletion of NHE3 have been generated by us and others to determine the critical roles and underlying mechanisms of NHE3 in maintaining basal body salt and fluid balance, blood pressure homeostasis, and the development of Ang II-induced hypertension at the whole-body, kidney, or proximal tubule levels. The objective of this invited article is to review, update, and discuss recent findings on the critical roles of intestinal and proximal tubule NHE3 in maintaining basal blood pressure homeostasis and their potential therapeutic implications in the development of angiotensin II (Ang II)-dependent hypertension.

Impact of the SPRINT Trial on Hypertension Management

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is the first large prospective randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the benefit of an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment target (<120 mm Hg) compared to a standard target (<140 mm Hg) in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality in high-risk hypertensive patients. The impact of SPRINT on hypertension treatment has been large, but major questions remain about the feasibility of achieving the SPRINT intensive SBP target in routine practice, the generalizability of the SPRINT findings to hypertensive populations that were excluded from the trial, and the cost effectiveness of adopting the SPRINT intensive treatment goal. In this review, we discuss the generalizability of SPRINT data to the general population of adults with hypertension and with various comorbidities, the cost effectiveness of intensive SBP-lowering therapy, and the implications of SPRINT for future hypertension guideline development and clinical practice.

The J-shaped Curve for Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Historical Context and Recent Updates

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The definition and treatment of hypertension have both changed dramatically over the last century, with recent trials suggesting benefit for lower blood pressure (BP) targets than ever before considered. However, tempering the enthusiasm for more intensive BP targets are long-held concerns that BP reduction below a certain threshold may pose dangers, the so-called "J-curve." In this review, we summarize the evidence for a J-curve in the treatment of hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) reported that achieving a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular disease in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction. However, contemporary observational studies consistently demonstrate a BP J-curve, the threshold of which is often close to the SPRINT target. Studies also suggest that the BP level of this J-curve may vary based on patient characteristics, including age and comorbidities. There is also more compelling evidence for the specific presence of a J-curve between diastolic BP and coronary events, in contrast to conflicting evidence of a J-curve with systolic BP and cardiovascular disease more generally. There is increased risk of coronary events below a diastolic BP of 60-70 mmHg. In comparison, the presence of a systolic J-curve is less clear and some persons at high risk may actually benefit from systolic levels down to 120 mmHg. Therefore, we suggest a personalized approach to BP management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets. Further, well-designed studies are required to support our suggestions and to define J-curve thresholds more clearly.