Search

Hypertension Canada provides annually-updated, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. This year, the adult and pediatric guidelines are combined in one document. The new 2018 pregnancy-specific hypertension guidelines are published separately. For 2018, 5 new guidelines were introduced, and one existing guideline on the blood pressure thresholds and targets in the setting of thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke was revised. The use of validated wrist devices for the estimation of blood pressure in individuals with large arm circumference is now included. Guidance is provided for the follow-up measurements of blood pressure, with the use of standardized methods and electronic (oscillometric) upper arm devices in individuals with hypertension, and either ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring in individuals with white coat effect. We specify that all individuals with hypertension should have an assessment of global cardiovascular risk to promote health behaviours that lower blood pressure. Finally, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor combination should be used in place of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in individuals with heart failure (with ejection fraction < 40%) who are symptomatic despite appropriate doses of guideline-directed heart failure therapies. The specific evidence and rationale underlying each of these guidelines are discussed.

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2013. This year's update includes 2 new recommendations. First, among nonhypertensive or stage 1 hypertensive individuals, the use of resistance or weight training exercise does not adversely influence blood pressure (BP) (Grade D). Thus, such patients need not avoid this type of exercise for fear of increasing BP. Second, and separately, for very elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (age 80 years or older), the target for systolic BP should be150 mm Hg (Grade C) rather than140 mm Hg as recommended for younger patients. We also discuss 2 additional topics at length (the pharmacological treatment of mild hypertension and the possibility of a diastolic J curve in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease). In light of several methodological limitations, a recent systematic review of 4 trials in patients with stage 1 uncomplicated hypertension did not lead to changes in management recommendations. In addition, because of a lack of prospective randomized data assessing diastolic BP thresholds in patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension, no recommendation to set a selective diastolic cut point for such patients could be affirmed. However, both of these issues will be examined on an ongoing basis, in particular as new evidence emerges.

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2012. The new recommendations are: (1) use of home blood pressure monitoring to confirm a diagnosis of white coat syndrome; (2) mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may be used in selected patients with hypertension and systolic heart failure; (3) a history of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension should not be a factor in deciding to prescribe an angiotensin-receptor blocker for the treatment of hypertension; and (4) the blood pressure target for patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease has now been changed to < 140/90 mm Hg from < 130/80 mm Hg. We also reviewed the recent evidence on blood pressure targets for patients with hypertension and diabetes and continue to recommend a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg.

β-Adrenergic blocking agents (or β-blockers) have been widely used for the treatment of hypertension for the past 50 years, and continue to be recommended as a mainstay of therapy in many national guidelines. They have also been used in a variety of cardiovascular conditions commonly complicating hypertension, including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction (MI), acute and chronic heart failure, as well as conditions like essential tremor and migraine. Moreover, they have played a primary role in controlling blood pressure in patients with these specific comorbidities and in reducing cardiovascular risk with regard to the composite outcome of death, stroke, and MI among patients younger than 60 years of age. However, in patients 60 years of age or older, β-blockers were not associated with significantly lower rates of MI, heart failure or death, and demonstrated higher rates of stroke compared with other first-line therapies. Consequently, the Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommends the use of β-blockers as first-line therapy in hypertensive patients younger than 60 years of age but not for those age 60 and older, with the exception of patients with concomitant β-blocker-requiring cardiac diseases. Several reports suggest that the lack of consistent outcome data may relate to the use of traditional β-blockers such as atenolol and their ability only to reduce cardiac output, without beneficial effect on peripheral vascular resistance. The present report will describe the clinically relevant mechanisms of action of β-blockers, their pharmacological differences, their metabolic effects, and their usefulness in patients with hypertension.

Blood pressure (BP) control is frequently difficult to achieve in patients with predominantly elevated systolic BP. Consequently, these patients frequently require combination therapy including a thiazide diuretic such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and an agent blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Current clinical practice usually limits the daily dose of HCTZ to 25 mg. This often leads to the necessity of using additional antihypertensive agents to control BP in a high proportion of patients.To compare the efficacy of two doses of losartan (LOS)⁄HCTZ combinations in patients with uncontrolled ambulatory systolic hypertension after six weeks of treatment with LOS 100 mg⁄HCTZ 25 mg (LOS100⁄HCTZ25).Following a two- to four-week washout period, subjects with a mean clinic sitting systolic BP of 160 mmHg or higher and a mean ambulatory daytime systolic BP (MDSBP) of 135 mmHg or higher on LOS100⁄HCTZ25 (n=105; 33 women and 72 men) were randomly assigned to receive LOS 150 mg⁄HCTZ 25 mg (group 1; n=53) or LOS 150 mg⁄HCTZ 37.5 mg (LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5, group 2; n=52). The primary end point was the difference in MDSBP reductions.At the end of the six-week treatment period, the respective additional decreases in MDSBP were 1.2 mmHg (P=0.335) on LOS 150 mg⁄HCTZ 25 mg and 5.6 mmHg (P0.0001) on LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5 (difference of 4.4 mmHg; P=0.011). Daytime systolic ambulatory BP goal (lower than 130 mmHg) achievement tended to be higher (25% versus 17%; P=0.313) with LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5, while it was significantly higher (65% versus 43%; P=0.024) for mean daytime diastolic BP (lower than 80 mmHg). No deleterious metabolic changes were observed.In patients with uncontrolled systolic ambulatory hypertension receiving LOS100⁄HCTZ25, increasing both HCTZ and LOS dosages simultaneously to LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5 may be an effective strategy that does not affect metabolic parameters.

The present study investigated whether initiating therapy with a combination of losartan (L) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) allows for faster blood pressure (BP) control and fewer medications than the usual stepped-care approach in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension.Patients with a mean daytime systolic ambulatory BP (ABP) of 135 mmHg or higher were randomly assigned to receive L 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg titrated to L 100 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg versus HCTZ 12.5 mg plus atenolol 50 mg. Amlodipine 5 mg was then added, if needed, to achieve a BP goal of less than 130 mmHg. Treatment titration was based on ABP.Significantly more patients randomly assigned to L/HCTZ (63.5%) than stepped-care (37.5%; P=0.008) achieved the primary end point (daytime systolic BP of less than 130 mmHg). Initial L/HCTZ induced significantly greater decreases in ABP during each 24 h period after six weeks of therapy. Although reductions in systolic and diastolic ABP were not statistically different at the end of the study, ABP reduction was significantly greater (P0.001) with the L/HCTZ-based regimen. Twice as many patients in the L/HCTZ group achieved the goal ABP with no more than two drugs (30.0% versus 14.7%; P=0.03). Moreover, tolerability was significantly better (P=0.006) in the L/HCTZ group, with a 40.0% incidence of adverse events, versus 65.6% in the stepped-care group.Initiating antihypertensive therapy with the combination of L/HCTZ in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension reaches a target BP faster in a higher proportion of patients, with fewer adverse events and less need for a third drug regimen than the conventional stepped-care approach.

A comparative prospective study of 120 adult diabetics (60 insulin dependent, 60 non-insulin dependent) and 120 non-diabetic adults as controls showed significantly higher incidence of Dupuytren's disease, limited joint motion, carpal tunnel syndrome, and flexor tenosynovitis in the diabetic population. Of the diabetic patients one third had a mild non-progressive form of Dupuytren's disease, which commonly involved the long and ring rays. Limited joint motion was noted in a third of diabetics, and carpal tunnel syndrome was observed in 15-25%, and flexor tenosynovitis in about a fifth. Limited joint motion co-existed with Dupuytren's disease in 57% of insulin-dependent diabetics. Diabetic polyneuropathy was found in two thirds of insulin-dependent diabetics and in one third of non-insulin dependent diabetics. All these hand changes were more marked in insulin-dependent diabetics and they showed a positive correlation with increasing age of the patient, duration of the diabetes, and the presence of a microangiopathy.