Abstract:Diabetes is a major and growing cause of cardiovascular disease worldwide. Efforts to reduce cardiovascular risk by targeting the fundamental abnormality in diabetes through intensive glucose lowering have only produced modest benefits and may carry some risks, so alternative strategies have been sought. Blood pressure (BP) lowering has been widely recommended for protection against cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes as well as other groups at high risk. BP targets recommended by guideline groups have been progressively lowered over time, and intensive BP lowering to below 130/80 is now widely advocated for individuals with diabetes. Although evidence from the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study [1], the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) study [2,3] and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) [4], and also the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) meta-analysis support intensive BP control and a lower target in patients with diabetes [5], the target of 130/80 mmHg has not specifically been assessed by any of these [6]. The publication of the ACCORD trial BP lowering arm in 2010 has led many to question these recommendations [7]. In this large study with 4733 patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, intensive BP lowering to a target less than 120 mmHg failed to demonstrate clear benefits for fatal or nonfatal major cardiovascular events as compared with a target below 140/90 mmHg. Further uncertainty was introduced by a narrowly focused Cochrane review in people with hypertension that reported no benefit for BP targets below 130/85 mmHg compared with usual targets [8]. Finally, observational analyses of clinical trial datasets have reported associations between lower BP levels and higher coronary disease risk. However, with post-hoc analyses, the main virtue of clinical trials (randomization) is lost, so that it is not certain whether this is causal or represents the effects of preclinical disease both lowering BP and independently increasing risk [9]. There is, therefore, substantial uncertainty regarding the value of intensive BP lowering in people with diabetes. In this edition of the Journal of Hypertension, Reboldi et al. report a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effects of BP lowering in patients with diabetes on the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke that helps to bring some clarity to the area [10]. This study pooled the results of 31 randomized controlled trials including 73 913 patients with diabetes that compared different BP lowering agents or strategies. The results showed overall benefits produced by BP lowering for stroke and MI that was mainly observed in the placebo controlled and BP target trials. In the latter, more intensive BP lowering reduced the risk of stroke by 39% [relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48–0.79, P < 0.001] and demonstrated a trend towards benefit for MI that approached but did not achieve statistical significance (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74–1.02, P = 0.084). Meta-regression revealed that the risk of stroke was nearly decreased by 13% for each 5 mmHg SBP reduction. Importantly, although an association between the risk of MI and the extent of BP lowering was not confirmed, a ‘ J-curve’ for coronary events was not observed and was effectively excluded down to a SBP level of 120 mmHg. Finally, no clear differences between different drug classes were observed. Given this evidence, the authors conclude that protection against stroke increases with the magnitude of BP reduction, whereas some uncertainty persists for coronary events. A key question is why the findings from this systematic review appear to differ from the results of individual trials such as the ACCORD study [7] and also from the recent Cochrane review [8]. In both cases, the most likely reason for the lack of benefit observed relates to limited statistical power. Few individual trials have recorded sufficient numbers of events and achieved large enough BP differences between randomized groups, to detect plausible effects of intensive BP control regimens on vascular outcomes. Even in the large ACCORD study, patient and treatment factors led to a cardiovascular event rate that was almost half of the expected rate, so that the BP arm had less than 70% power to detect the predefined 20% risk reduction goal, and even less power to detect smaller differences. Power is also an issue for the Cochrane review, where narrow criteria were used to identify eligible studies leading to limited data availability. What are the implications of this study for clinical practice? Firstly, intensive BP control aiming for lower BP targets clearly and consistently reduces the risk of stroke, a common and devastating event frequently observed in people with diabetes. Therefore, BP lowering should play a primary role in stroke prevention, and intensive BP lowering is clearly appropriate in people at high stroke risk. Secondly, intensive BP lowering does not increase the risk of coronary events and indeed may produce coronary benefits. The weaker association observed in this study is consistent with that reported from previous meta-analyses of both observational [11] and randomized trial data [5]. This suggests that concerns about lower BP targets in the commonly observed range and the risk of coronary disease derived from observational studies are likely due to reverse causality. This is further supported by a review of different BP lowering targets in the general population which suggested that both stroke and coronary disease benefits are achieved with lower BP targets [12]. In addition, a systematic review of large randomized controlled trials in patients with normal BP levels and a history of cardiovascular disease found that BP lowering consistently reduced the risk of MI (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.93), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80–0.90) and cardiovascular death (RR 0.83 95% CI0.69–0.99) as well as stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.98) [13]. More data regarding the effects of different BP targets on coronary events are required and should be provided by the planned Systolic blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) trial in people without diabetes (NCT01206062). An additional important consideration is the effect of intensive BP lowering on other outcomes, including kidney disease, eye disease and adverse events. This has not been addressed by this review and will be an important area of study going forward. Several studies have provided important new information about BP management over recent years. As the role of intensive BP lowering in patients with diabetes or other patients at high cardiovascular risk continues to be debated [14], the present systematic review is timely, clearly supporting a role for intensive BP management in diabetes. Although we still have much to learn, this data should help to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease in this high-risk patient group.

Abstract:HomeHypertensionVol. 62, No. 4Response to Masked Hypertension in Untreated and Treated Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Attractive But Questionable Interpretations and Response to Is Masked Hypertension Related to Diabetes Mellitus? Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBResponse to Masked Hypertension in Untreated and Treated Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Attractive But Questionable Interpretations and Response to Is Masked Hypertension Related to Diabetes Mellitus? Stanley S. Franklin Lutgarde Thijs Yan Li Tine W. Hansen José Boggia Yanping Liu Kei Asayama Kristina Björklund-Bodegård Takayoshi Ohkubo Jørgen Jeppesen and Christian Torp-Pedersen Eamon Dolan Tatiana Kuznetsova Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek Valérie Tikhonoff Sofia Malyutina Edoardo Casiglia Yuri Nikitin Lars Lind Edgardo Sandoya Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz Jan Filipovský Yutaka Imai Jiguang Wang Hans Ibsen Eoin O’Brien Jan A. Staessen Stanley S. FranklinStanley S. Franklin Heart Disease Prevention Program, Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine Search for more papers by this author Lutgarde ThijsLutgarde Thijs The Studies Coordinating Centre, Division of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Search for more papers by this author Yan LiYan Li Center for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials and Center for Vascular Evaluation, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China Search for more papers by this author Tine W. HansenTine W. Hansen Research Center for Prevention and Health and Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark Search for more papers by this author José BoggiaJosé Boggia The Centro de Nefrología and Departamento de Fisiopatología, Hospital de Clínicas, Universidad de la RepúblicaMontevideo, Uruguay Search for more papers by this author Yanping LiuYanping Liu The Studies Coordinating Centre, Division of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Search for more papers by this author Kei AsayamaKei Asayama The Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and Medicine, Sendai, Japan Search for more papers by this author Kristina Björklund-BodegårdKristina Björklund-Bodegård The Section of Geriatrics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Search for more papers by this author Takayoshi OhkuboTakayoshi Ohkubo The Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and Medicine, Sendai, Japan Search for more papers by this author Jørgen JeppesenJørgen Jeppesen The Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark Search for more papers by this author and Christian Torp-PedersenChristian Torp-Pedersen The Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark Search for more papers by this author Eamon DolanEamon Dolan Cambridge University Hospitals, Addenbrook’s Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom Search for more papers by this author Tatiana KuznetsovaTatiana Kuznetsova The Studies Coordinating Centre, Division of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Search for more papers by this author Katarzyna Stolarz-SkrzypekKatarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek First Department of Cardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland Search for more papers by this author Valérie TikhonoffValérie Tikhonoff Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy Search for more papers by this author Sofia MalyutinaSofia Malyutina Institute of Internal Medicine, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation Search for more papers by this author Edoardo CasigliaEdoardo Casiglia Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy Search for more papers by this author Yuri NikitinYuri Nikitin Institute of Internal Medicine, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation Search for more papers by this author Lars LindLars Lind The Section of Geriatrics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Search for more papers by this author Edgardo SandoyaEdgardo Sandoya The Asociación Española Primera de Socorros Mutuos, Montevideo, Uruguay Search for more papers by this author Kalina Kawecka-JaszczKalina Kawecka-Jaszcz First Department of Cardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland Search for more papers by this author Jan FilipovskýJan Filipovský Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic Search for more papers by this author Yutaka ImaiYutaka Imai The Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and Medicine, Sendai, Japan Search for more papers by this author Jiguang WangJiguang Wang Center for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China Search for more papers by this author Hans IbsenHans Ibsen The Aarhus University and Division of Cardiology, Holbak Hospital, Holbak, Denmark Search for more papers by this author Eoin O’BrienEoin O’Brien The Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Search for more papers by this author Jan A. StaessenJan A. Staessen The Studies Coordinating Centre, Division of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Search for more papers by this author Search for more papers by this author and on behalf of the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators* Originally published12 Aug 2013https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.01700Hypertension. 2013;62:e23–e25Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2013: Previous Version 1 We agree with Drs Sobiczewski and Wirtwein that a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or the use of antidiabetic drugs may not provide an accurate prevalence of the disease, in particular because of the somewhat different criteria used in the 11 cohorts included in the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO).1 However, misclassification of diabetes mellitus should weaken, not strengthen, the results of our study. In reply to the comments on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurement, we standardized the definitions of daytime and nighttime across cohorts taking into account the differences in the pattern of daily activities between Europe and Asia (see Expanded Methods in the online-only Data Supplement).1 Moreover, to account for the varying intervals between ambulatory BP readings, we computed time-weighted BP means of the daytime BP (see Expanded Methods in the online-only Data Supplement).1 In terms of the comparison of cardiovascular risk between untreated diabetic patients with masked hypertension versus untreated diabetic patients with stage-1 hypertension,1 we wish to correct a misconception. The risk was equal with a hazard ratio of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.58–1.98; P=0.82). In addition, the hypothesis that we may have underdiagnosed untreated masked hypertension in the patients with diabetes mellitus by using the daytime rather than the nighttime ambulatory BP was put to the test. Of the 229 untreated diabetic patients with normotension by office reading, there were 67 (29.3%) versus 56 (24.5%) patients with masked hypertension as identified by elevated daytime versus nighttime BP, respectively. However, use of daytime versus nighttime BP to define masked hypertension led to discrepant diagnoses in 22.2% of the untreated patients with diabetes mellitus. There is abundant evidence in the diabetic and other high-risk hypertensive states that nocturnal BP, alone or together with daytime BP, is a superior predictor of cardiovascular risk than daytime BP alone.2–4 In the current study in untreated patients with diabetes mellitus, masked hypertension, either defined using daytime BP (hazard ratio, 1.96; confidence interval, 0.97–3.97; P=0.059) or nighttime BP (hazard ratio, 3.44; confidence interval, 1.68–7.06; P<0.001), predicted increased cardiovascular risk as compared with sustained normotension. However, confidence intervals were wide and overlapping probably because of the relatively small number of events in these subgroups. This limitation was noted in our discussion.1Doumas et al raised several issues. The figure used in the Clinical Implications section,5 which accompanied our publication,1 addressed many of these issues. First, in both patients with and without diabetes mellitus, there was a significantly greater cardiovascular risk in the untreated masked hypertensive than in the untreated normotensive comparator group. With adjustment for center, sex, and age, the P value was 0.0091. Second, we hypothesized that antihypertensive treatment converted cases of sustained hypertension into treated masked hypertension. This may explain the higher prevalence of masked hypertension in treated versus untreated patients. Similarly, treatment may have converted masked hypertension into sustained normotension. This resulted in a higher rate of cardiovascular events during the 11-year follow-up in both treated masked hypertensives and treated normotensives as compared to the untreated normotensive comparator group with no difference in cardiovascular event rate between treated masked hypetensives and treated normotensives. Third, we postulate that the greatest reduction in cardiovascular risk occurs when antihypertensive treatment dosage is titrated upward or additional antihypertensive agents are added, until the majority of patients with masked hypertension reached sustained normotension, that is, when the ambulatory BP was normalized. Not surprisingly, normalization of ambulatory BP with treatment did not eliminate the lifetime cardiovascular burden associated with previous elevated BP, nor did it correct other cardiometabolic risk factors that cluster with the hypertensive state.6 Thus, the cardiovascular risk in a patient with treated, normalized BP is always greater than in an untreated subject with the identical BP.6 Fourth, antihypertensive treatment increases the prevalence of masked hypertension by decreasing conventional BP versus ambulatory BP by a ratio of ≈3 to 2.7 This further strengthens our hypothesis that subjects who started with untreated sustained hypertension were converted by treatment into masked hypertension because conventional BP normalized, whereas the ambulatory BP remained elevated. Fifth, because antihypertensive therapy decreases conventional BP more than the ambulatory BP, the reliance on conventional BP as a target treatment goal will result in suboptimal reduction in the cardiovascular event rate. We agree with Doumas et al and so stated in our limitation section: “the confidence intervals around the hazard ratios comparing the risks in masked hypertensives versus normotensives and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertensives were wide, reflecting limited statistical power to accurately assess differences between these subgroups.”1 Furthermore, the larger nondiabetic IDACO population of patients with masked hypertension was supportive of all the above conclusions and with more robust significant P values.1 Importantly, follow-up BP data and more information on the type of antihypertensive therapy would have been useful, but the absence of this information did not weaken the conclusions of our study.1 Similarly, we agree that 24-hour ambulatory BP cannot be justified on a cost–benefit basis for every normotensive diabetic patient, as has been concluded by other investigators.8 As we suggested in the Perspectives,1 home BP monitoring may be a satisfactory substitute for ambulatory BP monitoring in low-risk patients.9 Furthermore, others have concluded that patients with diabetes mellitus and masked hypertension have sufficient cardiovascular risk factors, frequently including target organ damage, to warrant antihypertensive therapy.10,11 However, we agree with Doumas et al that the benefit of treatment of masked hypertension in patients with and without diabetes mellitus must be confirmed by randomized controlled trials. Finally, as stated in our recent IDACO study,1 our conclusions are hypothesis generating and need verification by further studies.Stanley S. FranklinHeart Disease Prevention ProgramDivision of CardiologySchool of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineLutgarde ThijsThe Studies Coordinating CentreDivision of Hypertension and Cardiovascular RehabilitationDepartment of Cardiovascular SciencesUniversity of LeuvenLeuven, BelgiumYan LiCenter for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials and Center for Vascular EvaluationRuijin HospitalShanghai Jiaotong University School of MedicineShanghai, ChinaTine W. HansenResearch Center for Prevention and Health and Steno Diabetes CenterGentofte, DenmarkJosé BoggiaThe Centro de Nefrología and Departamento de FisiopatologíaHospital de ClínicasUniversidad de la RepúblicaMontevideo, UruguayYanping LiuThe Studies Coordinating CentreDivision of Hypertension and Cardiovascular RehabilitationDepartment of Cardiovascular SciencesUniversity of LeuvenLeuven, BelgiumKei AsayamaThe Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and MedicineSendai, JapanKristina Björklund-BodegårdThe Section of GeriatricsDepartment of Public Health and Caring SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsala, SwedenTakayoshi OhkuboThe Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and MedicineSendai, JapanJørgen JeppesenChristian Torp-PedersenThe Copenhagen University HospitalCopenhagen, DenmarkEamon DolanCambridge University HospitalsAddenbrook’s HospitalCambridge, United KingdomTatiana KuznetsovaThe Studies Coordinating CentreDivision of Hypertension and Cardiovascular RehabilitationDepartment of Cardiovascular SciencesUniversity of LeuvenLeuven, BelgiumKatarzyna Stolarz-SkrzypekFirst Department of Cardiology and HypertensionJagiellonian University Medical CollegeKraków, PolandValérie TikhonoffDepartment of Clinical and Experimental MedicineUniversity of PadovaPadova, ItalySofia MalyutinaInstitute of Internal MedicineSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical SciencesNovosibirsk, Russian FederationEdoardo CasigliaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental MedicineUniversity of PadovaPadova, ItalyYuri NikitinInstitute of Internal MedicineSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical SciencesNovosibirsk, Russian FederationLars LindThe Section of GeriatricsDepartment of Public Health and Caring SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsala, SwedenEdgardo SandoyaThe Asociación Española Primera de Socorros MutuosMontevideo, UruguayKalina Kawecka-JaszczFirst Department of Cardiology and HypertensionJagiellonian University Medical CollegeKraków, PolandJan FilipovskýFaculty of MedicineCharles UniversityPilsen, Czech RepublicYutaka ImaiThe Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Science and MedicineSendai, JapanJiguang WangCenter for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical TrialsRuijin HospitalShanghai Jiaotong University School of MedicineShanghai, ChinaHans IbsenThe Aarhus University and Division of CardiologyHolbak HospitalHolbak, DenmarkEoin O’BrienThe Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical ResearchUniversity College DublinDublin, IrelandJan A. StaessenThe Studies Coordinating CentreDivision of Hypertension and Cardiovascular RehabilitationDepartment of Cardiovascular SciencesUniversity of LeuvenLeuven, Belgiumon behalf of the International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators*DisclosuresNone.FootnotesLetters to the Editor will be published, if suitable, as space permits. They should not exceed 500 words (typed double-spaced) plus 5 references in length and may be subject to editing or abridgment.*The IDACO investigators are listed in the online-only Data Supplement.1References1. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Li Y, et al; International Database on Ambulatory blood pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes Investigators. Masked hypertension in diabetes mellitus: treatment implications for clinical practice.Hypertension. 2013; 61:964–971.LinkGoogle Scholar2. Kario K, Pickering TG, Matsuo T, Hoshide S, Schwartz JE, Shimada K. Stroke prognosis and abnormal nocturnal blood pressure falls in older hypertensives.Hypertension. 2001; 38:852–857.LinkGoogle Scholar3. Pogue V, Rahman M, Lipkowitz M, Toto R, Miller E, Faulkner M, Rostand S, Hiremath L, Sika M, Kendrick C, Hu B, Greene T, Appel L, Phillips RA; African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Collaborative Research Group. Disparate estimates of hypertension control from ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measurements in hypertensive kidney disease.Hypertension. 2009; 53:20–27.LinkGoogle Scholar4. Ishikawa J, Hoshide S, Eguchi K, Ishikawa S, Shimada K, Kario K; Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure Study Investigators Group. Nighttime home blood pressure and the risk of hypertensive target organ damage.Hypertension. 2012; 60:921–928.LinkGoogle Scholar5. Clinical implications. Masked hypertension in diabetes mellitus.Hypertension. 2013; 61:931.LinkGoogle Scholar6. Isles CG, Walker LM, Beevers GD, Brown I, Cameron HL, Clarke J, Hawthorne V, Hole D, Lever AF, Robertson JW. Mortality in patients of the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic.J Hypertens. 1986; 4:141–156.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Mancia G, Parati G. Office compared with ambulatory blood pressure in assessing response to antihypertensive treatment: a meta-analysis.J Hypertens. 2004; 22:435–445.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Parati G, Bilo G. Should 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring be done in every patient with diabetes?Diabetes Care. 2009; 32 (suppl 2):S298–S304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Richart T, Boggia J, Adiyaman A, Dechering DG, Kuznetsova T, Thien T, de Leeuw P, Imai Y, O’brien E, Parati G. Thirty years of research on diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for the self-measured blood pressure at home.Blood Press Monit. 2008; 13:352–365.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Leitão CB, Canani LH, Kramer CK, Boza JC, Pinotti AF, Gross JL. Masked hypertension, urinary albumin excretion rate, and echocardiographic parameters in putatively normotensive type 2 diabetic patients.Diabetes Care. 2007; 30:1255–1260.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Ogedegbe G, Agyemang C, Ravenell JE. Masked hypertension: evidence of the need to treat.Curr Hypertens Rep. 2010; 12:349–355.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Hadjkacem F, Triki F, Frikha H, Charfeddine S, Boujelbene K, Ghorbel D, Kammoun S and Abid M (2022) L'hypertension artérielle masquée chez les diabétiques de type 2 : Prévalence, facteurs associés et retentissement cardiovasculaire, Annales de Cardiologie et d'Angéiologie, 10.1016/j.ancard.2021.10.018, 71:3, (136-140), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022. Ferdinand K, Harrison D and Johnson A (2020) The NEW-HOPE study and emerging therapies for difficult-to-control and resistant hypertension, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.pcad.2019.12.008, 63:1, (64-73), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2020. Sánchez R, Boggia J, Peñaherrera E, Barroso W, Barbosa E, Villar R, Cobos L, Hernández Hernández R, Lopez J, Octavio J, Parra Carrillo J, Ramírez A and Parati G (2020) Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring over 24 h: A Latin American Society of Hypertension position paper—accessibility, clinical use and cost effectiveness of ABPM in Latin America in year 2020, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 10.1111/jch.13816, 22:4, (527-543), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2020. Whelan A and Ku E (2019) Use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in kidney transplant recipients, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 10.1093/ndt/gfz010, 34:9, (1437-1439), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, Clement D, Coca A, de Simone G, Dominiczak A, Kahan T, Mahfoud F, Redon J, Ruilope L, Zanchetti A, Kerins M, Kjeldsen S, Kreutz R, Laurent S, Lip G, McManus R, Narkiewicz K, Ruschitzka F, Schmieder R, Shlyakhto E, Tsioufis C, Aboyans V, Desormais I, De Backer G, Heagerty A, Agewall S, Bochud M, Borghi C, Boutouyrie P, Brguljan J, Bueno H, Caiani E, Carlberg B, Chapman N, Cífková R, Cleland J, Collet J, Coman I, de Leeuw P, Delgado V, Dendale P, Diener H, Dorobantu M, Fagard R, Farsang C, Ferrini M, Graham I, Grassi G, Haller H, Hobbs F, Jelakovic B, Jennings C, Katus H, Kroon A, Leclercq C, Lovic D, Lurbe E, Manolis A, McDonagh T, Messerli F, Muiesan M, Nixdorff U, Olsen M, Parati G, Perk J, Piepoli M, Polonia J, Ponikowski P, Richter D, Rimoldi S, Roffi M, Sattar N, Seferovic P, Simpson I, Sousa-Uva M, Stanton A, van de Borne P, Vardas P, Volpe M, Wassmann S, Windecker S, Zamorano J, Windecker S, Aboyans V, Agewall S, Barbato E, Bueno H, Coca A, Collet J, Coman I, Dean V, Delgado V, Fitzsimons D, Gaemperli O, Hindricks G, Iung B, Jüni P, Katus H, Knuuti J, Lancellotti P, Leclercq C, McDonagh T, Piepoli M, Ponikowski P, Richter D, Roffi M, Shlyakhto E, Simpson I, Sousa-Uva M, Zamorano J, Tsioufis C, Lurbe E, Kreutz R, Bochud M, Rosei E, Jelakovic B, Azizi M, Januszewics A, Kahan T, Polonia J, van de Borne P, Williams B, Borghi C, Mancia G, Parati G, Clement D, Coca A, Manolis A, Lovic D, Benkhedda S, Zelveian P, Siostrzonek P, Najafov R, Pavlova O, De Pauw M, Dizdarevic-Hudic L, Raev D, Karpettas N, Linhart A, Olsen M, Shaker A, Viigimaa M, Metsärinne K, Vavlukis M, Halimi J, Pagava Z, Schunkert H, Thomopoulos C, Páll D, Andersen K, Shechter M, Mercuro G, Bajraktari G, Romanova T, Trušinskis K, Saade G, Sakalyte G, Noppe S, DeMarco D, Caraus A, Wittekoek J, Aksnes T, Jankowski P, Polonia J, Vinereanu D, Baranova E, Foscoli M, Dikic A, Filipova S, Fras Z, Bertomeu-Martínez V, Carlberg B, Burkard T, Sdiri W, Aydogdu S, Sirenko Y, Brady A, Weber T, Lazareva I, Backer T, Sokolovic S, Jelakovic B, Widimsky J, Viigimaa M, Pörsti I, Denolle T, Krämer B, Stergiou G, Parati G, Trušinskis K, Miglinas M, Gerdts E, Tykarski A, de Carvalho Rodrigues M, Dorobantu M, Chazova I, Lovic D, Filipova S, Brguljan J, Segura J, Gottsäter A, Pechère-Bertschi A, Erdine S, Sirenko Y and Brady A (2018) 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension, European Heart Journal, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy339, 39:33, (3021-3104), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2018. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, Clement D, Coca A, de Simone G, Dominiczak A, Kahan T, Mahfoud F, Redon J, Ruilope L, Zanchetti A, Kerins M, Kjeldsen S, Kreutz R, Laurent S, Lip G, McManus R, Narkiewicz K, Ruschitzka F, Schmieder R, Shlyakhto E, Tsioufis C, Aboyans V and Desormais I (2018) 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension, Journal of Hypertension, 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001940, 36:10, (1953-2041), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018. Drapkina O, Ezhov M, Gilyarevsky S and Shepel R (2019) Evidence, Guidelines and Treatment Algorithms for Patients with Arterial Hypertension and Dyslipidemia: the Need for Compromise and Optimization of Tactics in Practical Healthcare, Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology, 10.20996/1819-6446-2019-15-4-578-585, 15:4, (578-585) October 2013Vol 62, Issue 4 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.01700PMID: 24156104 Originally publishedAugust 12, 2013 PDF download Advertisement SubjectsHypertension

Target home morning SBP be below 125 mmHg in type 2 diabetes patients

Potential Long-Term Benefit of Home Systolic Blood Pressure Below 125 mm Hg for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: The J-HOP Study Extended

Association of Visit-to-Visit Variability of Blood Pressure with Cardiovascular Disease among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Cohort Study

Effect of Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure on New-Onset Cardioand Cerebrovascular Events in Diabetic Population

Effect of Achieved Systolic Blood Pressure on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

Maximum home blood pressure is a useful indicator of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: KAMOGAWA-HBP study

Nighttime Blood Pressure Measured by Home Blood Pressure Monitoring as an Independent Predictor of Cardiovascular Events in General Practice

Home blood pressure stability score is associated with better cardiovascular prognosis: data from the nationwide prospective J-HOP study

Days of Measuring and Times of Readings Needed for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Assessment of Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

Comparison of Day‐to‐day Blood Pressure Variability in Hypertensive Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus to Those Without Diabetes: Asia BP@Home Study

Association of Cardiovascular Outcomes With Masked Hypertension Defined by Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in a Japanese General Practice Population

Peak nocturnal home blood pressure as an early and strong novel risk factor for stroke: the practitioner-based nationwide J-HOP Nocturnal BP study

Target Blood Pressure in Patients with Diabetes: Asian Perspective.

Diastolic and Systolic Blood Pressure Time in Target Range As a Cardiovascular Risk Marker in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of ACCORD BP Trial.

Peak home blood pressure as an earlier and strong novel risk factor for stroke: the practitioner-based nationwide J-HOP study extended

Blood Pressure Management in Diabetes: a Path Forward?

Blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A prospective cohort study

Response to Masked Hypertension in Untreated and Treated Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Attractive but Questionable Interpretations and Response to is Masked Hypertension Related to Diabetes Mellitus?

Longitudinal Patterns of Blood Pressure, Incident Cardiovascular Events, and All-Cause Mortality in Normotensive Diabetic People.

Comparison of Optimal Diagnostic Thresholds of Hypertension With Home Blood Pressure Monitoring and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

ISOLATED DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE AND RISK OF ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IN A COMMUNITY DWELLING POPULATION