Key result
Combined clinic and home BP monitoring lowers hypertension control by ~22 percentage points vs clinic alone.
Why the study?
Hypertension affects 25% of adults in India and only 52.5% of treated patients achieve controlled clinic blood pressure, prompting an investigation of blood pressure control using both clinic and home blood pressure measurements.
Does incorporating home blood pressure monitoring alongside clinic blood pressure measurements improve the detection of uncontrolled hypertension phenotypes compared to clinic blood pressure measurements alone in treated hypertensive patients in India?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,578)
Yes
Does incorporating home blood pressure monitoring alongside clinic blood pressure measurements improve the detection of uncontrolled hypertension phenotypes compared to clinic blood pressure measurements alone in treated hypertensive patients in India?
Relying on clinic blood pressure alone overestimates blood pressure control by 21.8 percentage points in treated Indian hypertensive patients, missing the 21.8% of patients who have masked uncontrolled hypertension.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinic BP alone risks misclassifying control; leaves open whether combined monitoring improves outcomes in treated Indian patients.
Hypertension is a prevalent non-communicable disease and a significant cardiovascular risk factor in India, affecting 25% of adults. Among those treated, only 52.5% achieved controlled clinic blood pressure (CBP). We investigated blood pressure (BP) control in India using CBP and home BP (HBP). This multicenter, cross-sectional study across 18 centers in 12 states within 7 regions enrolled hypertensive participants aged 20–70 years receiving antihypertensive medications for ≥3 months who regularly visited their clinic. A background survey and four CBP readings were collected at baseline (“Clinic Visit 1”) and Clinic Visit 2. Participants underwent HBP monitoring for seven days. Based on average CBP across the two clinic visits and average HBP, participants were classified as having well-controlled hypertension (CBP < 140/90 mmHg and HBP < 135/85 mmHg), white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH; CBP ≥ 140/90 mmHg and HBP < 135/85 mmHg), masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH; CBP < 140/90 mmHg and HBP ≥ 135/85 mmHg), or sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH; CBP ≥ 140/90 mmHg and HBP ≥ 135/85 mmHg). Among 1920 participants, 1578 with appropriate CBP and HBP readings were analyzed. Of these, 55.9% had well-controlled hypertension, 5.1% had WUCH, 21.8% had MUCH, and 17.2% had SUCH. The proportion classified as controlled was 77.7% using clinic BP alone versus 55.9% using both clinic and home BP, a difference of 21.8 percentage points. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating HBP alongside CBP for comprehensive assessment of BP control and identification of BP control phenotypes. Clinical trial registration: Registered at Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) under CTRI/2023/02/049486 on 06 February 2023.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verma et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Treated hypertension (n=1,578). Combined clinic and 7-day home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) vs. Clinic blood pressure (CBP) measurement alone was evaluated on Proportion of participants classified as having controlled hypertension (CBP < 140/90 mmHg and HBP < 135/85 mmHg vs CBP < 140/90 mmHg alone) (21.8 percentage points difference). Combined clinic and home blood pressure monitoring classified 55.9% of treated hypertensive patients as controlled compared to 77.7% using clinic blood pressure alone, a 21.8 percentage point difference.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: