Search

Background: Nighttime blood pressure (BP) has greater prognostic importance for cardiovascular disease (CVD) than daytime BP, but less is known about nighttime and daytime BP associations with measures of subclinical CVD., Methods: Among 897 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial Study (SPRINT) participants with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring obtained near the 27-month study visit, 849 (95%) had N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measured at the 24-month study visit. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the associations of nighttime and daytime BP with cardiac biomarker levels., Results: The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 28% were African American, and mean nighttime and daytime SBP were 121 ± 16 mm Hg and 132 ± 14 mm Hg, respectively. In multivariable models, compared with the lowest tertile of nighttime systolic BP, the highest tertile was associated with 48% higher NT-proBNP levels (adjusted geometric mean ratio [GMR] = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.79), and 19% higher hs-cTnT levels (adjusted GMR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.32). In contrast, the highest vs. lowest tertile of daytime systolic BP was not associated with NT-proBNP (adjusted GMR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.34), but was associated with 16% higher hs-cTnT levels (adjusted GMR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.30). Similar results were observed using diastolic BP., Conclusions: In SPRINT, both higher nighttime and daytime BP were independently associated with higher hs-cTnT levels, but only higher nighttime BP was associated with higher NT-proBNP levels., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Intensive BP lowering in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) produced acute decreases in kidney function and higher risk for AKI. We evaluated the effect of intensive BP lowering on long-term changes in kidney function using trial and outpatient electronic health record (EHR) creatinine values., Methods: SPRINT data were linked with EHR data from 49 (of 102) study sites. The primary outcome was the total slope of decline in eGFR for the intervention phase and the post-trial slope of decline during the observation phase using trial and outpatient EHR values. Secondary outcomes included a ≥30% decline in eGFR to <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 and a ≥50% decline in eGFR or kidney failure among participants with baseline eGFR ≥60 and <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , respectively., Results: EHR creatinine values were available for a median of 8.3 years for 3041 participants. The total slope of decline in eGFR during the intervention phase was -0.67 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.79 to -0.56) in the standard treatment group and -0.96 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.85) in the intensive treatment group ( P < 0.001). The slopes were not significantly different during the observation phase: -1.02 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year (95% CI, -1.24 to -0.81) in the standard group and -0.85 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year (95% CI, -1.07 to -0.64) in the intensive group. Among participants without CKD at baseline, intensive treatment was associated with higher risk of a ≥30% decline in eGFR during the intervention (hazard ratio, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.43 to 4.40), but not during the postintervention observation phase. In those with CKD at baseline, intensive treatment was associated with a higher hazard of eGFR decline only during the intervention phase (hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.03 to 3.70)., Conclusions: Intensive BP lowering was associated with a steeper total slope of decline in eGFR and higher risk for kidney events during the intervention phase of the trial, but not during the postintervention observation phase., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Background: Orthostatic changes in blood pressure (BP), either orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypertension (OHTN), are common among patients with chronic kidney disease. Whether they are associated with unique out-of-office BP phenotypes is unknown., Methods: CRIC is a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of participants with CKD. BP measured at 2 min after standing and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) were obtained on 1386 participants. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a 20 mmHg drop in SBP or 10 mmHg drop in DBP when changing from seated to standing positions. Systolic and diastolic night-to-day ratio was also calculated. OHTN was defined as a 20 or 10 mmHg rise in SBP or DBP when changing from a seated to a standing position. White-coat effect (WCE) was defined as seated minus daytime ambulatory BP., Results: Of the 1386 participants (age: 58 ± 10 years, 44% female, 39% black), 68 had orthostatic hypotension and 153 had OHTN. Postural reduction in SBP or DBP was positively associated with greater systolic and diastolic WCE and systolic and diastolic night-to-day ratio. Orthostatic hypotension was positively associated with diastolic WCE (β = 3 [0.2, 5.9]). Diastolic OHTN was negatively associated with systolic WCE (β = -4 [-7.2, -0.5]) and diastolic WCE (β = -6 [-8.1, -4.2])., Conclusion: Postural change in BP was associated with WCE and night-to-day-ratio. Orthostatic hypotension was positively associated with WCE and OHTN was negatively associated with WCE. These findings strengthen observations that postural changes in BP may associate with distinct BP patterns throughout the day. These observations are informative for subsequent research tailoring orthostatic hypotension and OHTN treatment to specific BP phenotypes., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized trials are the gold standard for generating clinical practice evidence, but follow-up and outcome ascertainment are resource-intensive. Electronic health record (EHR) data from routine care can be a cost-effective means of follow-up, but concordance with trial-ascertained outcomes is less well-studied., Methods: We linked EHR and trial data for participants of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a randomized trial comparing intensive and standard blood pressure targets. Among participants with available EHR data concurrent to trial-ascertained outcomes, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EHR-recorded cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, using the gold standard of SPRINT-adjudicated outcomes (myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure, stroke, and composite CVD events). We additionally compared the incidence of non-CVD adverse events (hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, bradycardia, and hypotension) in trial versus EHR data., Results: 2468 SPRINT participants were included (mean age 68 (SD 9) years; 26% female). EHR data demonstrated ≥80% sensitivity and specificity, and ≥ 99% negative predictive value for MI/ACS, heart failure, stroke, and composite CVD events. Positive predictive value ranged from 26% (95% CI; 16%, 38%) for heart failure to 52% (95% CI; 37%, 67%) for MI/ACS. EHR data uniformly identified more non-CVD adverse events and higher incidence rates compared with trial ascertainment., Conclusions: These results support a role for EHR data collection in clinical trials, particularly for capturing laboratory-based adverse events. EHR data may be an efficient source for CVD outcome ascertainment, though there is clear benefit from adjudication to avoid false positives., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CDC receives research support from Bayer Healthcare, Inc. outside the submitted work. AM reports ownership interest in iEnroll, LLC. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive blood pressure control reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the legacy effect of intensive treatment is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the long-term effects of randomization to intensive treatment with the incidence of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality approximately 4.5 years after the trial ended., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomization began on November 8, 2010, the trial intervention ended on August 20, 2015, and trial close-out visits occurred through July 2016. Patients 50 years and older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but without diabetes or history of stroke were included from 102 clinic sites in the US and Puerto Rico. Analyses were conducted between October 2021 and February 2022., Interventions: Randomization to systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) vs less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Extended observational follow-up for mortality via the US National Death Index from 2016 through 2020. In a subset of 2944 trial participants, outpatient SBP from electronic health records during and after the trial were examined., Results: Among 9361 randomized participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (9.4) years, and 3332 (35.6%) were women. Over a median (IQR) intervention period of 3.3 (2.9-3.9) years, intensive treatment was beneficial for both cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.01). However, at the median (IQR) total follow-up of 8.8 (8.3-9.3) years, there was no longer evidence of benefit for cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.24) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.23). In a subgroup of participants, the estimated mean outpatient SBP among participants randomized to intensive treatment increased from 132.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 132.0-133.7) at 5 years to 140.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 137.8-143.0) at 10 years following randomization., Conclusions and Relevance: The beneficial effect of intensive treatment on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality did not persist after the trial. Given increasing outpatient SBP levels in participants randomized to intensive treatment following the trial, these results highlight the importance of consistent long-term management of hypertension., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Competing Interests: All authors have nothing to disclose.

Background: Adjudication of inpatient AKI in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) was based on billing codes and admission and discharge notes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard BP control on creatinine-based inpatient and outpatient AKI, and whether AKI was associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality., Methods: We linked electronic health record (EHR) data from 47 clinic sites with trial data to enable creatinine-based adjudication of AKI. Cox regression was used to evaluate the effect of intensive BP control on the incidence of AKI, and the relationship between incident AKI and CVD and all-cause mortality., Results: A total of 3644 participants had linked EHR data. A greater number of inpatient AKI events were identified using EHR data (187 on intensive versus 155 on standard treatment) as compared with serious adverse event (SAE) adjudication in the trial (95 on intensive versus 61 on standard treatment). Intensive treatment increased risk for SPRINT-adjudicated inpatient AKI (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.08) and for creatinine-based outpatient AKI (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.70), but not for creatinine-based inpatient AKI (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.48). Irrespective of the definition (SAE or creatinine based), AKI was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, but only creatinine-based inpatient AKI was associated with increased risk for CVD., Conclusions: Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by EHR data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional SAE adjudication. Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control., Competing Interests: A.K. Agarwal reports serving in an advisory or leadership role for American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), Clinical Nephrology, International Journal of Nephrology, International Society of Nephrology (ISN), Journal of Vascular Access, Kidney Self-Assessment Program, National Kidney Foundation (NKF), and The Open Urology and Nephrology Journal; having other interests in, or relationships with, the American Society of Nephrology, ASDIN, ISN, and NKF; serving on a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; having consultancy agreements with, and receiving honoraria from, AstraZeneca and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals. S. Beddhu reports receiving research funding from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; having consultancy agreements with Bayer and Reata; and serving in an advisory or leadership role for CJASN and Kidney Reports. M. Dobre reports receiving honoraria from Relypsa and Tricida; and serving in an advisory or leadership role for Relypsa (Resistant Hypertension Working Group) and Tricida (Metabolic Acidosis Working Group). J.P. Dwyer reports having consultancy agreements with Acuta Capital, Akcea, Aleon, Ardelyx, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Axsome, Bayer, BioRasi, BioVie, Boeringher Ingelheim, Botanix, Caladrius, Cincor, Contrafect, Cumberland, Eli Lilly, ES, Fibrogen, Genentech, Hope Pharma, Icon, Ionis, Innovative Renal Care, Keros, LifeSci Venture, Medpace, MicuRx, PSI, Rarestone, Reata, RenalytixAI, Sanofi, Spero, Tricida, ValenzaBio, and Worldwide Clinical Trials; having ownership interest in BioRasi, Innovative Renal Care, PathEx, ValenzaBio, and Venostent; serving in an advisory or leadership role for Collaborative Study Group (board of directors and president) and The Bolles School (high school in Jacksonville, FL; board of directors); and having other interests in, or relationships with, The Bolles School Board of Visitors. E. Horwitz reports having other interests in, or relationships with, MetroHealth Medical Center, contracted with Fresenius Kidney Care (serving as medical director for inpatient dialysis services). J. Lash reports serving in an advisory or leadership role for Kidney360. A. McWilliams reports having ownership interest in iEnroll. S. Oparil reports receiving research funding from Bayer (site principal investigator [PI] in diabetic kidney disease), CinCor Pharma (site PI for primary aldosterone study), George Clinical (site PI for GMRx2 treatment of hypertension), and Higi (site PI for BP validation study); having ownership interest in CinCor Pharma; serving in an advisory or leadership role for CinCor Pharma (scientific advisory board for primary aldosteronism and hypertension) and Preventric Diagnostics (chair medical and technology committee; from March 2019 to present); and serving as editor-in-chief of Current Hypertension Reports (journal published by Springer Science Business Media LLC; annual stipend of $5000; editor-in-chief term until December 2022). N.M. Pajewski reports having ownership interest in Eyenovia and Ocuphire Pharma. M.A. Parkulo reports having ownership interest in Apple, Blackberry, Carnival, JPMorgan Chase, Marriott, StitchFix, and Zoom. J. Powell reports receiving research funding from Idorsia (for acting as site PI). F.F. Rahbari-Oskoui reports having consultancy agreements with Astute, Kadmon, Keryx, Phoenix (client Otsuka), Sanofi, and UpToDate; serving in an advisory or leadership role for BMC Nephrology (as associate editor), Journal of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine (as editorial board member), and PKD Foundation; receiving research funding from Duke University, Kadmon, NIH, Otsuka, Reata, and Sanofi/Genzyme; serving on a speakers bureau for Otsuka (unbranded speakers bureau; only raising disease awareness in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease without any reference to commercial products); receiving honoraria from Otsuka and Sanofi; and having other interests in, or relationships with, PKD Foundation (scientific advisory board member) and UpToDate (as author, receiving authorship royalties). M. Rahman reports serving as an editorial board member of American Journal of Nephrology and as an associate editor of CJASN; having consultancy agreements with Barologics; receiving research funding from Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Duke Clinical Research Institute; and receiving honoraria from Bayer, Reata, and Relypsa. D.S. Raj reports having other interests in, or relationships with, the American Association of Kidney Patients; serving in an advisory or leadership role for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), and Novo Nordisk; receiving research funding from the NIH; having consultancy agreements with, and receiving honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. M.V. Rocco reports having consultancy agreements with Bayer, Baxter, and George Clinical; receiving research funding from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GlaxoSmithKline; serving as cochair of the ISN Kidney Care Network Project and as chair of NKF Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative; and serving in an advisory or leadership role for NKF. S. Soman reports serving in an advisory or leadership role for the American Medical Informatics Association, NKF, and NKF of Michigan; having other interests in, or relationships with, American Medical Informatics Association, Cardiorenal Society of America (CRSA), NKF (education committee), and NKF of Michigan (scientific advisory board); being employed by Henry Ford Hospital; and having ownership interest in Nephroceuticals and Pfizer. G. Thomas reports receiving honoraria from UpToDate. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Importance: There are concerns with translating results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) into clinical practice because the standardized protocol used to measure blood pressure (BP) may not be consistently applied in routine clinical practice., Objectives: To evaluate the concordance between BPs obtained in routine clinical practice and those obtained using the SPRINT protocol and whether concordance varied by target trial BP., Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational prognostic study linking outpatient vital sign information from electronic health records (EHRs) with data from 49 of the 102 SPRINT sites was conducted from November 8, 2010, to August 20, 2015, among 3074 adults 50 years or older with hypertension without diabetes or a history of stroke. Statistical analysis was performed from May 21, 2019, to March 20, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Blood pressures measured in routine clinical practice and SPRINT., Results: Participant-level EHR data was obtained for 3074 participants (2482 men [80.7%]; mean [SD] age, 68.5 [9.1] years) with 3 or more outpatient and trial BP measurements. In the period from the 6-month study visit to the end of the study intervention, the mean systolic BP (SBP) in the intensive treatment group from outpatient BP recorded in the EHR was 7.3 mm Hg higher (95% CI, 7.0-7.6 mm Hg) than BP measured at trial visits; the mean difference between BP recorded in the outpatient EHR and trial SBP was smaller for participants in the standard treatment group (4.6 mm Hg [95% CI, 4.4-4.9 mm Hg]). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated low agreement between outpatient BP recorded in the EHR and trial BP, with wide agreement intervals ranging from approximately -30 mm Hg to 45 mm Hg in both treatment groups. In addition, the difference between BP recorded in the EHR and trial BP varied widely by site., Conclusions and Relevance: Outpatient BPs measured in routine clinical practice were generally higher than BP measurements taken in SPRINT, with greater mean SBP differences apparent in the intensive treatment group. There was a consistent high degree of heterogeneity between the BPs recorded in the EHR and trial BPs, with significant variability over time, between and within the participants, and across clinic sites. These results highlight the importance of proper BP measurement technique and an inability to apply 1 common correction factor (ie, approximately 10 mm Hg) to approximate research-quality BP estimates when BP is not measured appropriately in routine clinical practice., Trial Registration: SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Background: Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension is common in patients with CKD. Whether measurement of 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring is valuable for risk-stratifying patients with resistant hypertension and CKD is unclear., Methods: We analyzed data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study, a prospective study of participants ( n =1186) with CKD. Office BP was measured using standardized protocols; ambulatory BP was measured using Spacelabs monitors. Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension was defined on the basis of office BP, ambulatory BP monitoring, and use of more than three antihypertensive medications. Outcomes were composite cardiovascular disease, kidney outcomes, and mortality. Groups were compared using Cox regression analyses with a control group of participants without apparent treatment-resistant hypertension., Results: Of 475 participants with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension on the basis of office BP, 91.6% had apparent treatment-resistant hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP monitoring. Unadjusted event rates of composite cardiovascular disease, kidney outcomes, and mortality were higher in participants with ambulatory BP monitoring-defined apparent treatment-resistant hypertension compared with participants without apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. In adjusted analyses, the risks of composite cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 2.7), kidney outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.88 to 3.21), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.5 to 3.25) were not statistically significantly higher in participants with ambulatory BP monitoring-defined apparent treatment-resistant hypertension compared with participants without apparent treatment-resistant hypertension., Conclusions: In our study population with CKD, most patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension defined on the basis of office BP have apparent treatment-resistant hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP monitoring. Although ABPM-defined apparent treatment-resistant hypertension was not independently associated with clinical outcomes, it identified participants at high risk for adverse clinical outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Hypertension is highly prevalent in patients with CKD as is cognitive impairment and frailty, but the link between them is understudied. Our objective was to determine the association between ambulatory BP patterns, cognitive function, physical function, and frailty among patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: Ambulatory BP readings were obtained on 1502 participants of the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort. We evaluated the following exposures: ( 1 ) BP patterns (white coat, masked, sustained versus controlled hypertension) and ( 2 ) dipping patterns (reverse, extreme, nondippers versus normal dippers). Outcomes included the following: ( 1 ) cognitive impairment scores from the Modified Mini Mental Status Examination of <85, <80, and <75 for participants <65, 65-79, and ≥80 years, respectively; ( 2 ) physical function, measured by the short physical performance battery (SPPB), with higher scores (0-12) indicating better functioning; and ( 3 ) frailty, measured by meeting three or more of the following criteria: slow gait speed, muscle weakness, low physical activity, exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss. Cognitive function and frailty were assessed at the time of ambulatory BP (baseline) and annually thereafter. SPPB was assessed at baseline logistic and linear regression and Cox discrete models assessed the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between dipping and BP patterns and outcomes., Results: Mean age of participants was 63±10 years, 56% were male, and 39% were black. At baseline, 129 participants had cognitive impairment, and 275 were frail. Median SPPB score was 9 (interquartile range, 7-10). At baseline, participants with masked hypertension had 0.41 (95% CI, -0.78 to -0.05) lower SPPB scores compared with those with controlled hypertension in the fully adjusted model. Over 4 years of follow-up, 529 participants had incident frailty, and 207 had incident cognitive impairment. After multivariable adjustment, there was no association between BP or dipping patterns and incident frailty or cognitive impairment., Conclusions: In patients with CKD, dipping and BP patterns are not associated with incident or prevalent cognitive impairment or prevalent frailty., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated blood pressure (BP). In patients with CKD, hypertension is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, progression of CKD, and all-cause mortality. New guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend new thresholds and targets for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in patients with and without CKD. A new aspect of the guidelines is the recommendation for measurement of out-of-office BP to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and guide therapy. In this KDOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) perspective, we review the recommendations for accurate BP measurement in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring. Regardless of location, validated devices and appropriate cuff sizes should be used. In the clinic and at home, proper patient preparation and positioning are critical. Patients should receive information about the importance of BP measurement techniques and be encouraged to advocate for adherence to guideline recommendations. Implementing appropriate BP measurement in routine practice is feasible and should be incorporated in system-wide efforts to improve the care of patients with hypertension. Hypertension is the number 1 chronic disease risk factor in the world; BP measurements in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring should adhere to recommendations from the AHA., (Copyright © 2019 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Kidney tubular atrophy on biopsy is a strong predictor of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, but tubular health is poorly quantified by traditional measures including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria. We hypothesized that urinary biomarkers of impaired tubule function would be associated with faster eGFR declines in persons with CKD., Methods: We measured baseline urine concentrations of uromodulin, β2-microglobulin (β2m), and α1-microglobulin (α1m) among 2,428 participants of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial with an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. We used linear mixed models to evaluate biomarker associations with annualized relative change in eGFR, stratified by randomization arm., Results: At baseline, the mean age was 73 ± 9 years and eGFR was 46 ± 11 mL/min/1.73 m2. In the standard blood pressure treatment arm, each 2-fold higher urinary uromodulin was associated with slower % annual eGFR decline (0.34 [95% CI: 0.08, 0.60]), whereas higher urinary β2m was associated with faster % annual eGFR decline (-0.10 [95% CI: -0.18, -0.02]) in multivariable-adjusted models including baseline eGFR and albuminuria. Associations were weaker and did not reach statistical significance in the intensive blood pressure treatment arm for either uromodulin (0.11 [-0.13, 0.35], p value for interaction by treatment arm = 0.045) or β2m (-0.01 [-0.08, 0.08], p value for interaction = 0.001). Urinary α1m was not independently associated with eGFR decline in the standard (0.01 [-0.22, 0.23]) or intensive (0.03 [-0.20, 0.25]) arm., Conclusions: Among trial participants with hypertension and CKD, baseline measures of tubular function were associated with subsequent declines in kidney function, although these associations were diminished by intensive blood pressure control., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The association between hypertension (HTN) and inflammatory biomarkers (interleukin-6 [IL-6] and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP]) in HIV-positive persons with CD4+ count >500 cells/mm3 is unknown., Methods: We studied HTN in participants of the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial of immediate vs. deferred antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV-positive, ART naive adults with CD4+ count > 500 cells/mm3. HTN was defined as having a systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥140 mmHg, a diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg, or using BP-lowering therapy. Logistic and discrete Cox regression models were used to study the association between baseline biomarker levels with prevalent and incident HTN., Results: Among 4,249 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease, the median age was 36 years, 55% were nonwhite, and the prevalence of HTN at baseline was 18.9%. After adjustment for race, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, smoking, HIV RNA and CD4+ levels, associations of IL-6 and hsCRP with HTN prevalence were not significant (OR per twofold higher:1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99, 1.20 for IL-6 and 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.10 for hsCRP). Overall incidence of HTN was 6.8 cases/100 person years. In similarly adjusted models, neither IL-6 (Hazard ratios [HR] per twofold higher IL-6 levels: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.08) nor hsCRP (HR per twofold higher hsCRP levels: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.02) were associated with risk of incident HTN. Associations did not differ by treatment group. Age, race, gender, and BMI were significantly associated with both the prevalence and incidence of HTN., Conclusions: Traditional risk factors and not baseline levels of IL-6 or hsCRP were associated with the prevalence and incidence of HTN in START., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2019. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27-month follow-up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (-27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (-23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

Background: Although hypertension is common in CKD and evidence-based treatment of hypertension has changed considerably, contemporary and nationally representative information about use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEs) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in CKD is lacking., Methods: We examined ACE/ARB trends from 1999 to 2014 among 38,885 adult National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants with creatinine-based eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 or urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g., Results: Of 7085 participants with CKD, 34.9% used an ACE/ARB. Across four eras studied, rates of use rose significantly (rates were 25.5% in 1999-2002, 33.3% in 2003-2006, 39.0% in 2007-2010, and 40.1% in 2011-2014) but appeared to plateau after 2003. Among those with CKD, use was significantly greater among non-Hispanic white and black individuals (36.1% and 38.2%, respectively) and lower among Hispanic individuals (26.7%) and other races/ethnicities (29.3%). In age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-adjusted models, ACE/ARB use was significantly associated with era (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.14 to 1.74 for 2003-2006, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.48 to 2.28 for 2007-2010, and 2.02; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.53 for 2011-2014 versus 1999-2002); it also was significantly associated with non-Hispanic black versus non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.66). Other multivariate associations included older age, men, elevated BMI, diabetes mellitus, treated hypertension, cardiac failure, myocardial infarction, health insurance, and receiving medical care within the prior year., Conclusions: Rates of ACE/ARB use increased in the early 2000s among United States adults with CKD, but for unclear reasons, use appeared to plateau in the ensuing decade. Research examining barriers to care and other factors is needed., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Restricted use of mercury devices, increased use of oscillometric devices, discrepancies between clinic and out-of-clinic BP, and concerns about measurement error with manual BP measurement techniques have resulted in uncertainty for clinicians and researchers. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health convened a working group of clinicians and researchers in October 2017 to review data on BP assessment among adults in clinical practice and clinic-based research. In this report, the authors review the topics discussed during a 2-day meeting including the current state of knowledge on BP assessment in clinical practice and clinic-based research, knowledge gaps pertaining to current BP assessment methods, research and clinical needs to improve BP assessment, and the strengths and limitations of using BP obtained in clinical practice for research and quality improvement activities., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Ambulatory BP is increasingly recognized as a better measure of the risk for adverse outcomes related to hypertension, an important comorbidity in patients with CKD. Varying definitions of white-coat and masked hypertension have made it difficult to evaluate differences in prevalence of these BP patterns across CKD cohorts., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: The International Database of Ambulatory BP in Renal Patients collaborative group established a large database of demographic, clinical, and ambulatory BP data from patients with CKD from cohorts in Italy, Spain, the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) and the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Cohort Study (AASK) in the United States, and the CKD Japan Cohort (CKD-JAC). Participants ( n =7518) with CKD were included in the present analyses. Cutoffs for defining controlled BP were 140/90 mm Hg for clinic and 130/80 mm Hg for 24-hour ambulatory BP., Results: Among those with controlled clinic BP, compared with CKD-JAC, AASK participants were more likely to have masked hypertension (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.04 to 1.41) whereas CRIC (PR, 0.82; 0.72 to 0.94), Italian (PR, 0.73; 0.56 to 0.95), and Spanish participants (PR, 0.75; 0.64 to 0.88) were less likely. Among those with elevated clinic BP, AASK participants were more likely to have sustained hypertension (PR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.32) whereas Italian (PR, 0.78; 0.70 to 0.87) and Spanish participants (PR, 0.89; 0.82 to 0.96) were less likely, although CRIC participants had similar prevalence as CKD-JAC. Prevalence of masked and sustained hypertension was elevated in males, patients with diabetes, participants on four or more antihypertensives, and those with moderate-to-severe proteinuria., Conclusions: In a large, multinational database, the prevalence of masked and sustained hypertension varied across cohorts independent of important comorbidities., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Patients with CKD typically have hypertension. Manual BP measurement in the office setting was used to define hypertension, establish eligibility, and assess BP targets in the epidemiologic studies and early randomized, controlled trials that inform current management of hypertension. Use of automated oscillometric devices has largely replaced manual BP measurement in the office and clinical trials. These newer devices may reduce the white coat effect and facilitate guideline-adherent measurement protocols. Obtaining BP measurements outside of the office with home and ambulatory BP monitoring is now more common. Out of office BPs are especially important in patients with CKD, because reduced GFR and proteinuria are associated with masked hypertension (normal office BP and elevated BP outside of the office), elevated nighttime BP, and abnormal diurnal variation in BP, all of which are associated with higher risk for target organ damage and adverse outcomes. Also, it is now feasible to routinely measure central BP and central hemodynamics. These measures are of greater importance to patients with CKD given the higher prevalence of increased sympathetic tone, arteriosclerosis, and inflammation as well as impaired sodium excretion and endothelial dysfunction, which lead to alterations in central BPs in this population. In this review, we describe various BP measurement techniques and how they apply to the care of patients with CKD., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Background: Treating to a lower blood pressure (BP) may increase acute kidney injury (AKI) events., Study Design: Data for AKI resulting in or during hospitalization or emergency department visits were collected as part of the serious adverse events reporting process of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)., Setting & Participants: 9,361 participants 50 years or older with 1 or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to a systolic BP target of <120 (intensive arm) or <140mmHg (standard arm)., Outcomes & Measurements: Primary outcome was the number of adjudicated AKI events. Secondary outcomes included severity of AKI and degree of recovery of kidney function after an AKI event. Baseline creatinine concentration was defined as the most recent SPRINT outpatient creatinine value before the date of the AKI event., Results: There were 179 participants with AKI events in the intensive arm and 109 in the standard arm (3.8% vs 2.3%; HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30-2.10; P<0.001). Of 288 participants with an AKI event, 248 (86.1%) had a single AKI event during the trial. Based on modified KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) criteria for severity of AKI, the number of AKI events in the intensive versus standard arm by KDIGO stage was 128 (58.5%) versus 81 (62.8%) for AKI stage 1, 42 (19.2%) versus 18 (14.0%) for AKI stage 2, and 42 (19.2%) versus 25 (19.4%) for AKI stage 3 (P=0.5). For participants with sufficient data, complete or partial resolution of AKI was seen for 169 (90.4%) and 9 (4.8%) of 187 AKI events in the intensive arm and 86 (86.9%) and 4 (4.0%) of 99 AKI events in the standard arm, respectively., Limitations: Trial results are not generalizable to patients with diabetes mellitus or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease., Conclusions: More intensive BP lowering resulted in more frequent episodes of AKI. Most cases were mild and most participants had complete recovery of kidney function., Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01206062., (Copyright © 2017 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypertension is the leading chronic disease risk factor in the world and is especially important in patients with CKD, nearly 90% of whom have hypertension. Recently, in the Systolic BP Intervention Trial (SPRINT), intensive lowering of clinic systolic BP to a target <120 mm Hg, compared with a standard BP target of <140 mm Hg, reduced risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. However, because BP was measured unobserved using an automated device, some investigators have questioned the ability to translate SPRINT results into routine clinical practice, in which measurement of BP is typically less standardized. In this review, we discuss the BP measurement techniques used in major observational studies and clinical trials that form the evidence base for our current approach to treating hypertension, evaluate the effect of measurement technique on BP readings, and explore how ambulatory BP data from the SPRINT trial may inform this discussion. We conclude by arguing for implementation of guideline-recommended BP measurement techniques in routine clinical practice., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Evening dosing of antihypertensive medications lowers nighttime blood pressure, and in one large randomized trial, it reduced the risk for cardiovascular outcomes. However, the feasibility of nighttime dosing in routine clinical practice is unknown. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of a brief pharmacist intervention to assign patients to take antihypertensive medications at specific times of the day. In this pilot, randomized controlled trial, 79 patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) taking one or more antihypertensive medications once daily were randomized to take one once-daily antihypertensive either in the morning or in the evening. A total of 79 patients were randomized (39 to morning dosing, 40 to evening dosing). Average (SD) age was 56.5 (14) years, 68% were male, and average (SD) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 36.6 (8.9) mL/min/1.73m 2 . Adherence, defined as taking the once-daily medication at the time indicated six or seven times in the last 7 days and not taking it at any other time during the day, was 91% in the morning arm and 95% in the evening arm (p = 0.57). This pilot demonstrates the feasibility and efficacy of a pharmacist-physician collaborative to assign once-daily antihypertensive medications to either morning or evening dosing.

The effect of clinic-based intensive hypertension treatment on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is unknown. The goal of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP ancillary study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based BP targets on ambulatory BP. Ambulatory BP was obtained within 3 weeks of the 27-month study visit in 897 SPRINT participants. Intensive treatment resulted in lower clinic systolic BP (mean difference between groups=16.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 14.1-17.8 mm Hg), nighttime systolic BP (mean difference=9.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 7.7-11.5 mm Hg), daytime systolic BP (mean difference=12.3 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 10.6-13.9 mm Hg), and 24-hour systolic BP (mean difference=11.2 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-12.8 mm Hg). The night/day systolic BP ratio was similar between the intensive (0.92±0.09) and standard-treatment groups (0.91±0.09). There was considerable lack of agreement within participants between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement on Bland-Altman plots. In conclusion, targeting a systolic BP of <120 mm Hg, when compared with <140 mm Hg, resulted in lower nighttime, daytime, and 24-hour systolic BP, but did not change the night/day systolic BP ratio. Ambulatory BP monitoring may be required to assess the effect of targeted hypertension therapy on out of office BP. Further studies are needed to assess whether targeting hypertension therapy based on ambulatory BP improves clinical outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01835249., Competing Interests: The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Primary care providers do not routinely follow guidelines for the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Multidisciplinary efforts may improve care for patients with chronic disease. Pharmacist based interventions have effectively improved management of hypertension. We performed a pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a pharmacist based quality improvement program on 1) outcomes for patients with CKD and 2) adherence to CKD guidelines in the primary care setting., Methods: Patients with moderate to severe CKD receiving primary care services at one of thirteen community-based Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics were randomized to a multifactorial intervention that included a phone-based pharmacist intervention, pharmacist-physician collaboration, patient education, and a CKD registry (n = 1070) or usual care (n = 1129). The primary process outcome was measurement of parathyroid hormone (PTH) during the one year study period. The primary clinical outcome was blood pressure (BP) control in subjects with poorly controlled hypertension at baseline., Results: Among those with poorly controlled baseline BP, there was no difference in the last recorded BP or the percent at goal BP during the study period (42.0% vs. 41.2% in the control arm). Subjects in the intervention arm were more likely to have a PTH measured during the study period (46.9% vs. 16.1% in the control arm, P <0.001) and were on more classes of antihypertensive medications at the end of the study (P = 0.02)., Conclusions: A one-time pharmacist based intervention proved feasible in patients with CKD. While the intervention did not improve BP control, it did improve guideline adherence and increased the number of antihypertensive medications prescribed to subjects with poorly controlled BP. These findings can inform the design of quality improvement programs and future studies which are needed to improve care of patients with CKD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01290614.

Background/aims: The value of the Framingham equation in predicting cardiovascular risk in African Americans and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the addition of CKD and race to the Framingham equation improves risk stratification in hypertensive patients., Methods: Participants in the ALLHAT were studied. Those randomized to doxazosin, older than 74 years, and those with a history of coronary heart disease were excluded. Two risk stratification models were developed using Cox proportional hazards models in a two-thirds developmental sample. The first model included the traditional Framingham risk factors. The second model included the traditional risk factors plus CKD, defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate categories, and stratification by race (black vs non-black). The primary outcome was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and hospitalized angina., Results: There were a total of 19,811 eligible subjects. In the validation cohort, there was no difference in C-statistics between the Framingham equation and the ALLHAT model including CKD and race. This was consistent across subgroups by race and sex and among those with CKD. One exception was among Non-Black women where the C-statistic was higher for the Framingham equation (0.68 vs 0.65, P = .02). In addition, net reclassification improvement was not significant for any subgroup based on race and sex, ranging from -5.5% to 4.4%., Conclusion: The addition of CKD status and stratification by race does not improve risk prediction in high-risk hypertensive patients., (Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypertension is a common clinical problem and a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke. Elevated heart rate is associated with elevated blood pressure, increased risk for hypertension, and, among hypertensives, increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Despite these important relationships, heart rate is generally not a major consideration in choosing antihypertensive medications. In part, this is due to a lack of evidence supporting heart rate lowering as a therapeutic strategy in hypertension. Additionally, while there is a positive correlation between heart rate and peripheral blood pressure, there is an inverse relationship between heart rate and central blood pressure. The use of antihypertensive medications, specifically medications that affect heart rate, may not reliably reduce central blood pressure to a similar extent as observed peripherally. We review the relationship between heart rate and peripheral and central blood pressure, with a focus on the implications for chronotropic therapy in hypertension.

Blood pressure traditionally has been measured in the clinic setting using the auscultatory method and a mercury sphygmomanometer. Technologic advances have led to improvements in measuring clinic blood pressure and allowed for measuring blood pressures outside the clinic. This review outlines various methods for evaluating blood pressure and the clinical utility of each type of measurement. Home blood pressures and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressures have improved our ability to evaluate the risk of target-organ damage and hypertension-related morbidity and mortality. Measuring home blood pressures may lead to more active participation in health care by patients and has the potential to improve blood pressure control. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring enables measuring nighttime blood pressures and diurnal changes, which may be the most accurate predictors of risk associated with elevated blood pressure. Additionally, reducing nighttime blood pressure is feasible and may be an important component of effective antihypertensive therapy. Finally, estimating central aortic pressures and pulse wave velocity are 2 of the newer methods for assessing blood pressure and hypertension-related target-organ damage., (Copyright © 2012 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypertension is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular and renal disease. Lowering blood pressure (BP) has been shown to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease, but randomized trials have not demonstrated a benefit of lowering BP for the progression of renal disease except in secondary analyses in patients with significant proteinuria. Recently, there has been increasing interest in measuring BP outside of the clinic, using both home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). ABPM has the advantage of measuring BP throughout both the day and night. Elevated nighttime BP and a lack of decline in BP from day to night (nondipping) are more potent risk factors for cardiovascular and renal outcomes than elevated daytime or clinic BP. Studies have shown that it is possible to lower nighttime BP and restore normal dipping with the administration of antihypertensive medications in the evening, known as chronotherapy. Evening administration of antihypertensives not only lowers nighttime BP but also is associated with decreased urinary protein excretion, decreased cardiovascular events, and decreased all-cause mortality. Reducing nighttime BP may slow the progression of chronic kidney disease and may be the key to linking the treatment of hypertension with improved renal outcomes.

Nighttime systolic blood pressure (BP) from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is more predictive than clinic BP for cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death even after controlling for clinic BP. However, ABPM is expensive and burdensome to obtain regularly. BPs obtained in the hospital may provide a window into nighttime BP. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all hypertensive patients admitted to the Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (LSCDVAMC) in 2002 and 2003 with one or more BP recorded between midnight and 6 am on the day of or the day before discharge. The mean age of the study population (n = 1085) was 62 years and 96% were male. Twenty-two percent had coronary artery disease (CAD) and 34% had diabetes. The mean nighttime systolic BP was 132 mmHg and baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was 83 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). Over a median follow-up period of 4.3 years, 266 subjects died, 22 developed end-stage renal disease (ESRD), 99 had a 50% decline in GFR, and 136 developed myocardial infarction (MI). The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) associated with a 10 mmHg increase in nighttime systolic BP were 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.15) for death, 1.30 (0.94-1.80) for ESRD, 1.26 (1.08-1.47) for a 50% decline in GFR, 1.07 (0.92-1.23) for myocardial infarction, and 1.12 (1.03-1.23) for a composite of death, ESRD, or a 50% decline in GFR. In conclusion, nighttime systolic BP in hospitalized patients is an independent predictor of important clinical outcomes such as a composite of death, ESRD, or a 50% decline in GFR.

Background: Adherence to hypertension guidelines in the outpatient setting is low., Objective: To evaluate adherence to JNC VII guidelines in nursing home patients., Design: Data were obtained from the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS), a nationally representative sample of US nursing homes. Patients with hypertension were identified using ICD-9 codes. Adherence to JNC VII guidelines was defined as the use of a thiazide diuretic in patients without a compelling indication for a different class of antihypertensive medication, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or a history of stroke., Participants: There were 13,507 patients in the 2004 NNHS survey, of whom 7,129 had hypertension., Main Results: Of these 7,129 hypertensive patients, only 12.6% were on a thiazide. Out of the 7,129 hypertensive patients, 3,113 did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or a history of stroke. Of these 3,113 patients, only 13.9% were on a thiazide. After excluding patients with a potential contraindication to a diuretic, such as hospice care or incontinence, only 18% were prescribed a thiazide. Of the 3,113 patients, 1,148 were on a single class of antihypertensive and more were prescribed a beta blocker, ACE inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, loop diuretic, and ARB than a thiazide diuretic., Conclusions: Adherence to hypertension guidelines among nursing home patients is low. The appropriate use of thiazide diuretics could reduce costs and improve blood pressure control and patient outcomes.