Healthy individuals exhibit blood pressure variation over a 24-hour period with higher blood pressure during wakefulness and lower blood pressure during sleep. Loss or disruption of the blood pressure circadian rhythm has been linked to adverse health outcomes, for example, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and chronic kidney disease. However, the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches lack sufficient attention to the circadian rhythmicity of blood pressure. Sleep patterns, hormone release, eating habits, digestion, body temperature, renal and cardiovascular function, and other important host functions as well as gut microbiota exhibit circadian rhythms, and influence circadian rhythms of blood pressure. Potential benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions such as meal timing, and pharmacologic chronotherapeutic interventions, such as the bedtime administration of antihypertensive medications, have recently been suggested in some studies. However, the mechanisms underlying circadian rhythm-mediated blood pressure regulation and the efficacy of chronotherapy in hypertension remain unclear. This review summarizes the results of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop convened on October 27 to 29, 2021 to assess knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the study of circadian rhythm of blood pressure and chronotherapy for hypertension.

Raised blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. Yet, its global prevalence is increasing, and it remains poorly detected, treated, and controlled in both high- and low-resource settings. From the perspective of members of the International Society of Hypertension based in all regions, we reflect on the past, present, and future of hypertension care, highlighting key challenges and opportunities, which are often region-specific. We report that most countries failed to show sufficient improvements in BP control rates over the past three decades, with greater improvements mainly seen in some high-income countries, also reflected in substantial reductions in the burden of cardiovascular disease and deaths. Globally, there are significant inequities and disparities based on resources, sociodemographic environment, and race with subsequent disproportionate hypertension-related outcomes. Additional unique challenges in specific regions include conflict, wars, migration, unemployment, rapid urbanization, extremely limited funding, pollution, COVID-19-related restrictions and inequalities, obesity, and excessive salt and alcohol intake. Immediate action is needed to address suboptimal hypertension care and related disparities on a global scale. We propose a Global Hypertension Care Taskforce including multiple stakeholders and societies to identify and implement actions in reducing inequities, addressing social, commercial, and environmental determinants, and strengthening health systems implement a well-designed customized quality-of-care improvement framework.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19.

Antihypertensive drug therapy is one of the most efficient medical interventions for preventing disability and death globally. Most of the evidence supporting its benefits has been derived from outcome trials with morning dosing of medications. Accumulating evidence suggests an adverse prognosis associated with night-time hypertension, nondipping blood pressure (BP) profile and morning BP surge, with increased incidence of cardiovascular events during the first few morning hours. These observations provide justification for complete 24-h BP control as being the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment. Bedtime administration of antihypertensive drugs has also been proposed as a potentially more effective treatment strategy than morning administration. This Position Paper by the International Society of Hypertension reviewed the published evidence on the clinical relevance of the diurnal variation in BP and the timing of antihypertensive drug treatment, aiming to provide consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Eight published outcome hypertension studies involved bedtime dosing of antihypertensive drugs, and all had major methodological and/or other flaws and a high risk of bias in testing the impact of bedtime compared to morning treatment. Three ongoing, well designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing. Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose.

The HYPEDIA study aimed at evaluating the implementation of the 2018 European guidelines for treating hypertension in primary care. A nationwide prospective non-interventional cross-sectional study was performed in consecutive untreated or treated hypertensives recruited mainly in primary care in Greece. Participants' characteristics, office blood pressure (BP) (triplicate automated measurements, Microlife BPA3 PC) and treatment changes were recorded on a cloud platform. A total of 3,122 patients (mean age 64 ± 12.5 [SD] years, 52% males) were assessed by 181 doctors and 3 hospital centers. In 772 untreated hypertensives (25%), drug treatment was initiated in the majority, with monotherapy in 53.4%, two-drug combination in 36.3%, and three drugs in 10.3%. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy was initiated in 30%, ARB/calcium channel blocker (CCB) 20%, ARB/thiazide 8%, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)-based 19%. Of the combinations used, 97% were in single-pill. Among 977 treated hypertensives aged <65 years, 79% had BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg (systolic and/or diastolic), whereas among 1,373 aged ≥65 years, 66% had BP ≥ 140/80 mmHg. ARBs were used in 69% of treated hypertensives, CCBs 47%, ACEis 19%, diuretics 39%, beta-blockers 19%. Treatment modification was decided in 53% of treated hypertensives aged <65 years with BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg and in 62% of those ≥65 years with BP ≥ 140/80 mmHg. Renin-angiotensin system blocker-based therapy constitutes the basis of antihypertensive drug treatment in most patients in primary care, with wide use of single-pill combinations. In almost half of treated uncontrolled hypertensives, treatment was not intensified, suggesting suboptimal implementation of the guidelines and possible physician inertia.

Clinically validated, automated arm-cuff blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs) are recommended for BP measurement. However, most BPMDs available for purchase by consumers globally are not properly validated. This is a problem because non-validated BPMDs are less accurate and precise than validated ones, and therefore if used clinically could lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of BP. In response to this problem, several validated device lists have been developed, which can be used by clinicians and consumers to identify devices that have passed clinical validation testing. The purpose of this review is to describe the resources that are available for finding validated BPMDs in different world regions, to identify the differences between validated device lists, and describe current gaps and challenges. How to use validated BPMDs properly is also summarised.

Automated 'oscillometric' blood pressure (BP) measuring devices (BPMDs) were developed in the 1970s to replace manual auscultatory BP measurement by mercury sphygmomanometer. Automated BPMDs that have passed accuracy testing versus a reference auscultatory sphygmomanometer using a scientifically accepted validation protocol are recommended for clinical use globally. Currently, there are many thousands of unique automated BPMDs manufactured by hundreds of companies, with each device using proprietary algorithms to estimate BP and using a method of operation that is largely unchanged since inception. Validated automated BPMDs provide similar BP values to those recorded using manual auscultation albeit with potential sources of error mostly associated with using empirical algorithms to derive BP from waveform pulsations. Much of the work to derive contemporary BP thresholds and treatment targets used to manage cardiovascular disease risk was obtained using automated BPMDs. While there is room for future refinement to improve accuracy for better individual risk stratification, validated BPMDs remain the recommended standard for office and out-of-office BP measurement to be used in hypertension diagnosis and management worldwide.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused an unprecedented shift from in person care to delivering healthcare remotely. To limit infectious spread, patients and providers rapidly adopted distant evaluation with online or telephone-based diagnosis and management of hypertension. It is likely that virtual care of chronic diseases including hypertension will continue in some form into the future. The purpose of the International Society of Hypertension's (ISH) position paper is to provide practical guidance on the virtual management of hypertension to improve its diagnosis and blood pressure control based on the currently available evidence and international experts' opinion for nonpregnant adults. Virtual care represents the provision of healthcare services at a distance with communication conducted between healthcare providers, healthcare users and their circle of care. This statement provides consensus guidance on: selecting blood pressure monitoring devices, accurate home blood pressure assessments, delivering patient education virtually, health behavior modification, medication adjustment and long-term virtual monitoring. We further provide recommendations on modalities for the virtual assessment and management of hypertension across the spectrum of resource availability and patient ability.

Current hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of several blood pressure (BP) readings obtained both in and out of the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In-office BP measurement using an upper-arm cuff constitutes the evidence-based reference method for current BP classification and treatment targets. However, out-of-office BP evaluation using 24 h ambulatory or home BP monitoring is recommended by all major medical associations for obtaining further insights into the BP profile of an individual and how it relates to their daily activities. Importantly, the highly variable nature of office and out-of-office BP readings has been widely acknowledged, including the association of BP variability with cardiovascular outcomes. However, to date, the implications of BP variability on cardiovascular outcomes have largely been ignored, with limited application in clinical practice. Novel cuffless wearable technologies might provide a detailed assessment of the 24 h BP profile and behaviour over weeks or months. These devices offer many advantages for researchers and patients compared with traditional BP monitors, but their accuracy and utility remain uncertain. In this Review, we outline and compare conventional and novel methods and techniques for assessing average BP levels and BP variability, and reflect on the utility and potential of these methods for improving the treatment and management of patients with hypertension.

Cuffless blood pressure (BP) measurement has become a popular field due to clinical need and technological opportunity. However, no method has been broadly accepted hitherto. The objective of this review is to accelerate progress in the development and application of cuffless BP measurement methods. We begin by describing the principles of conventional BP measurement, outstanding hypertension/hypotension problems that could be addressed with cuffless methods, and recent technological advances, including smartphone proliferation and wearable sensing, that are driving the field. We then present all major cuffless methods under investigation, including their current evidence. Our presentation includes calibrated methods (i.e., pulse transit time, pulse wave analysis, and facial video processing) and uncalibrated methods (i.e., cuffless oscillometry, ultrasound, and volume control). The calibrated methods can offer convenience advantages, whereas the uncalibrated methods do not require periodic cuff device usage or demographic inputs. We conclude by summarizing the field and highlighting potentially useful future research directions.