Does dosing antihypertensive drugs at night alter renal or cardiovascular outcome: do we have the evidence?:

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. Complete 24-hour blood pressure control is the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes is the ultimate aim. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of administration-time-related effects of once-daily evening versus conventional morning dosing antihypertensive drug therapy regimens on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, total adverse events, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects, and reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register via Cochrane Register of Studies (17 June 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2022); MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (1 June 2022); Embase (1 June 2022); ClinicalTrials.gov (2 June 2022); Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD) (1978 to 2009); Chinese VIP (2009 to 7 August 2022); Chinese WANFANG DATA (2009 to 4 August 2022); China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) (2009 to 6 August 2022); Epistemonikos (3 September 2022) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in people with primary hypertension. We excluded people with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or people with white coat hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two to four review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with another review author. We performed data synthesis and analyses using Review Manager Web for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, change in 24-hour blood pressure and change in morning blood pressure. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis, fixed-effect meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs in this updated review, of which two RCTs were excluded from the meta-analyses for lack of data and number of groups not reported. The quantitative analysis included 25 RCTs with 3016 participants with primary hypertension. RCTs used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (six trials), calcium channel blockers (nine trials), angiotensin II receptor blockers (seven trials), diuretics (two trials), α-blockers (one trial), and β-blockers (one trial). Fifteen trials were parallel designed, and 10 trials were cross-over designed. Most participants were white, and only two RCTs were conducted in Asia (China) and one in Africa (South Africa). All trials excluded people with risk factors of myocardial infarction and strokes. Most trials had high risk or unclear risk of bias in at least two of several key criteria, which was most prominent in allocation concealment (selection bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials. No RCTs reported on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. There may be little to no differences in all-cause mortality (after 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (after 8 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.57; RD 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), overall adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; I² = 37%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and withdrawals due to adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks active treatment: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; I² = 0%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very limited data and the defects of the trials' designs, this systematic review did not find adequate evidence to determine which time dosing drug therapy regimen has more beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events. We have very little confidence in the evidence showing that evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs is no more or less effective than morning administration to lower 24-hour blood pressure. The conclusions should not be assumed to apply to people receiving multiple antihypertensive drug regimens.

Chronotherapy for morning blood pressure surge in hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The morning blood pressure surge (MBPS) is related to an exaggerated risk of cardiovascular diseases and mortality. With increasing attention on circadian change in blood pressure and extensive use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), chronotherapy that administration of medication according to biological rhythm, is reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of chronotherapy of antihypertensive drugs upon MBPS in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

A search strategy was applied in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane (Wiley) CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Chinese Biomedical literature database. No language and date restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the efficacy of evening and morning administration of the same medications in adult patients with primary hypertension were included.

RESULTS

A total of ten trials, comprising 1724 participants with a mean age of 61 and 51% female, were included in this study. Combined analysis observed significant reduction of MBPS (- 5.30 mmHg, 95% CI - 8.80 to - 1.80), night-time SBP (- 2.29 mmHg, 95% CI - 4.43 to - 0.15), night-time DBP (- 1.63 mmHg, 95 %CI - 3.23 to - 0.04) and increase in night blood pressure dipping (3.23%, 95% CI 5.37 to 1.10) in evening dosage compared with traditional morning dosage of blood pressure-lowering drugs. No significant difference was found in the incidence of overall adverse effects (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.41) and withdrawal due to adverse effects (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that evening administration of antihypertensive medications exerted better blood pressure-lowering effect on MBPS compared with conventional morning dosage. Safety assessment also indicated that the evening regimen did not increase the risk of adverse events. However, endpoint studies need to be carried out to confirm the significance and feasibility of this treatment regimen in clinical practice.

Circadian variations in blood pressure and their implications for the administration of antihypertensive drugs: is dosing in the evening better than in the morning?

: Blood pressure (BP) follows a circadian rhythm with a physiological decrease during the night. Studies have demonstrated that nocturnal BP as well as its dipping pattern during night-time have a significant prognostic importance for mortality and the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Therefore, hypertension management guidelines recommend to ascertain that patients treated for hypertension have well controlled BP values around the clock. To improve hypertension control during the night and eventually further reduce cardiovascular events, it has been proposed by some to prescribe at least one antihypertensive medication at bedtime. In this review, we have examined the data which could support the benefits of prescribing BP-lowering drugs at bedtime. Our conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence that the administration of BP-lowering drugs in the evening provides any significant advantage in terms of quality of BP control, prevention of target organ damage or reduction of cardiovascular events. Before changing practice for unproven benefits, it would be wise to wait for the results of the ongoing trials that are addressing this issue.

Effects of chronotherapy of benazepril on the diurnal profile of RAAS and clock genes in the kidney of 5/6 nephrectomy rats

This study investigated the effects of benazepril administered in the morning or evening on the diurnal variation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and clock genes in the kidney. The male Wistar rat models of 5/6 subtotal nephrectomy (STNx) were established. Animals were randomly divided into 4 groups: sham STNx group (control), STNx group, morning benazepril group (MB) and evening benazepril group (EB). Benazepril was intragastrically administered at a dose of 10 mg/kg/day at 07:00 and 19:00 in the MB group and EB group respectively for 12 weeks. All the animals were synchronized to the light:dark cycle of 12:12 for 12 weeks. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), 24-h urinary protein excretion and renal function were measured at 11 weeks. Blood samples and kidneys were collected every 4 h throughout a day to detect the expression pattern of renin activity (RA), angiotensin II (AngII) and aldosterone (Ald) by radioimmunoassay (RIA) and the mRNA expression profile of clock genes (bmal1, dbp and per2) by real-time PCR at 12 weeks. Our results showed that no significant differences were noted in the SBP, 24-h urine protein excretion and renal function between the MB and EB groups. There were no significant differences in average Ald and RA content of a day between the MB group and EB group. The expression peak of bmal1 mRNA was phase-delayed by 4 to 8 h, and the diurnal variation of per2 and dbp mRNA diminished in the MB and EB groups compared with the control and STNx groups. It was concluded when the similar SBP reduction, RAAS inhibition and clock gene profile were achieved with optimal dose of benazepril, morning versus evening dosing of benazepril has the same renoprotection effects.

Losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination vs. high-dose losartan in patients with morning hypertension--a prospective, randomized, open-labeled, parallel-group, multicenter trial

The treatment of morning hypertension has not been established. We compared the efficacy and safety of a losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination and high-dose losartan in patients with morning hypertension. A prospective, randomized, open-labeled, parallel-group, multicenter trial enrolled 216 treated outpatients with morning hypertension evaluated by home blood pressure (BP) self-measurement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a combination therapy of 50 mg losartan and 12.5 mg HCTZ (n=109) or a high-dose therapy with 100 mg losartan (n=107), each of which were administered once every morning. Primary efficacy end points were morning systolic BP (SBP) level and target BP achievement rate after 3 months of treatment. At baseline, BP levels were similar between the two therapy groups. Morning SBP was reduced from 150.3±10.1 to 131.5±11.5 mm Hg by combination therapy (P<0.001) and from 151.0±9.3 to 142.5±13.6 mm Hg by high-dose therapy (P<0.001). The morning SBP reduction was greater in the combination therapy group than in the high-dose therapy group (P<0.001). Combination therapy decreased evening SBP from 141.6±13.3 to 125.3±13.1 mm Hg (P<0.001), and high-dose therapy decreased evening SBP from 138.9±9.9 to 131.4±13.2 mm Hg (P<0.01). Although both therapies improved target BP achievement rates in the morning and evening (P<0.001 for both), combination therapy increased the achievement rates more than high-dose therapy (P<0.001 and P<0.05, respectively). In clinic measurements, combination therapy was superior to high-dose therapy in reducing SBP and improving the achievement rate (P<0.001 and P<0.01, respectively). Combination therapy decreased urine albumin excretion (P<0.05) whereas high-dose therapy reduced serum uric acid. Both therapies indicated strong adherence and few adverse effects (P<0.001). In conclusion, losartan/HCTZ combination therapy was more effective for controlling morning hypertension and reducing urine albumin than high-dose losartan.

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. The morning surge in blood pressure is known to increase the risk of myocardial events in the first several hours post awakening. A systematic review of the administration-time-related-effects of evening versus morning dosing regimen of antihypertensive drugs in the management of patients with primary hypertension has not been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the administration-time-related-effects of antihypertensive drugs administered as once daily monotherapy in the evening versus morning administration regimen on all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and reduction of blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL on Ovid (4th Quarter 2009), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to October 2009), EMBASE (1974 to October 2009), the Chinese Biomedical literature database (1978 to 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in patients with primary hypertension were included. Patients with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or white coat hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis and analysis were done using RevMan 5.1. Random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 1,993 patients with primary hypertension met the inclusion criteria for this review - ACEIs (5 trials), CCBs (7 trials), ARBs (6 trials), diuretics (2 trials), alpha-blockers (1 trial), and beta-blockers (1 trial). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials.No RCT reported on all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and serious adverse events.There was no statistically significant difference for overall adverse events (RR=0.78, 95%CI: 0.37 to 1.65) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.26 to 1.07).No significant differences were noted for morning SBP (-1.62 mm Hg, 95% CI: -4.19 to 0.95) and morning DBP (-1.21 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.28 to 0.86); but 24-hour BP (SBP: -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.78 to -0.65; DBP: -1.38 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.13 to -0.62) showed a statistically significant difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No RCT reported on clinically relevant outcome measures - all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and morbidity. There were no significant differences in overall adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events among the evening versus morning dosing regimens. In terms of BP lowering efficacy, for 24-hour SBP and DBP, the data suggests that better blood pressure control was achieved with bedtime dosing than morning administration of antihypertensive medication, the clinical significance of which is not known.

Clinical features of 8295 patients with resistant hypertension classified on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

We aimed to estimate the prevalence of resistant hypertension through both office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a large cohort of treated hypertensive patients from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry. In addition, we also compared clinical features of patients with true or white-coat-resistant hypertension. In December 2009, we identified 68 045 treated patients with complete information for this analysis. Among them, 8295 (12.2% of the database) had resistant hypertension (office blood pressure ≥140 and/or 90 mm Hg while being treated with ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, 1 of them being a diuretic). After ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, 62.5% of patients were classified as true resistant hypertensives, the remaining 37.5% having white-coat resistance. The former group was younger, more frequently men, with a longer duration of hypertension and a worse cardiovascular risk profile. The group included larger proportions of smokers, diabetics, target organ damage (including left ventricular hypertrophy, impaired renal function, and microalbuminuria), and documented cardiovascular disease. Moreover, true resistant hypertensives exhibited in a greater proportion a riser pattern (22% versus 18%; P<0.001). In conclusion, this study first reports the prevalence of resistant hypertension in a large cohort of patients in usual daily practice. Resistant hypertension is present in 12% of the treated hypertensive population, but among them more than one third have normal ambulatory blood pressure. A worse risk profile is associated with true resistant hypertension, but this association is weak, thus making it necessary to assess ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for a correct diagnosis and management.

Role of olmesartan in combination therapy in blood pressure control and vascular function

Angiotensin receptor blockers have emerged as a first-line therapy in the management of hypertension and hypertension-related comorbidities. Since national and international guidelines have stressed the need to control blood pressure to <140/90 mmHg in uncomplicated hypertension and <130/80 mmHg in those with associated comorbidities such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, these goal blood pressures can only be achieved through combination therapy. Of several drugs that can be effectively combined to attain the recommended blood pressure goals, fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine provide additive antihypertensive effects associated with a safe profile and increased adherence to therapy. In this article, we review the evidence regarding the beneficial effects of renin–angiotensin system blockade with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine in terms of blood pressure control and improvement of vascular function and target organ damage.