Search

Abstract Introduction Hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Uncontrolled nocturnal blood pressure is prevalent in patients taking antihypertensive medication, with an incidence rate of 30–60%. Although chronotherapy with antihypertensive agents may provide a new direction for effective control of nocturnal blood pressure, the clinical evidence base remains controversial. This research is presently underway to compare the effects of morning and bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication on nocturnal reduction and circadian rhythm of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Methods and analysis This study is being performed as a randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, clinical trial in which 720 participants are to undergo 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) at baseline before being randomly assigned to a morning (6–10 am) or a bedtime (6–10 pm) administration group. Each participant receives one 20/5-mg tablet of olmesartan/amlodipine (OA) daily for 4 weeks and is then followed up at 4-week intervals for a total of 12 weeks. During follow-up, the OA dosage is adjusted according to the ABPM and OBPM results. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension at the first follow-up visit will receive an increase in OA dosage to 1.5 tablets/day. For patients with blood pressure that is still uncontrolled after a further 4 weeks, the dosage of OA can be increased to 2 tablets/day. The primary objective is the reduction in mean nocturnal systolic blood pressure between baseline and week 12. The secondary objectives are the reduction in ambulatory blood pressure at weeks 4 and 12 and the blood pressure control rate at weeks 4, 8, and 12. Discussion Antihypertensive chronotherapy remains controversial. A superiority test hypothesis design has been adopted for this trial, in which all participants will be taking the same antihypertensive medication. We anticipate that our findings will determine if nocturnal blood pressure control in Chinese patients with essential hypertension varies according to whether antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning or at bedtime. This study may provide scientific evidence for the application of chronotherapy in clinical practice. Trial registration ChiCTR2200059719. Registered on 10 May 2022 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=169782&htm=4 ) {2a,2b}

Purpose: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) by comparison with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of heart failure caused by acute myocardial infarction (HF-AMI) based on current randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: Several electronic databases were searched up to 27 May 2023. Primary endpoints were the efficacy including the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) and secondary endpoints were the safety including the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and adverse reaction (AE).Results: A total of 14 RCTs were included and all patients were from China. Among included 1,991 patients, 997 patients received SVs and 994 patients received ACEIs/ARBs. The pooled results demonstrated that patients in the SV group showed significantly better efficacy representing as increased LVEF [weighted mean difference (WMD): 4.43%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.84%–6.02%, p < 0.001] and 6MWT (WMD: 30.84 m, 95% CI: 25.65 m–36.03 m, p < 0.001) and decreased LVEDD (WMD: −3.24 mm, 95% CI: −4.96 mm ∼ -1.52 mm, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP (WMD: −188.12 pg/mL, 95% CI: −246.75 pg/mL ∼ 129.49 pg/mL, p < 0.001), which was also verified by subgroup analysis based on the history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Besides, the SV group showed significantly lower incidence rate of MACE [relative risk (RR): 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47–0.75, p < 0.001] and patients receiving SVs in the non-PCI group also showed lower incidence of AE (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20–0.71, p = 0.002).Conclusion: For the treatment of HF-AMI, SV is more effective and safer than ACEI/ARB based on current evidence, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed to verify above findings.