Guidelines on the management of hypertension have been developed by various professional bodies and institutions to primarily address the issues of diagnosis, treatment, and control in order to rationalize and improve the management of hypertension. Hypertension guidelines across the world have recently been updated following the new and controversial lower blood pressure threshold of ≥130/80 mmHg for the diagnosis of hypertension adopted by the Americans. While there are differences between the major as well as between the Asian national guidelines, there were also many similarities. This paper discusses and highlights the differences and similarities between the major international guidelines of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, of the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension, and of the International Society of Hypertension and also compares them with the Asian guidelines.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is becoming the most important burden to health care systems in most part of the world, especially in Asia. Aiming at identifying high risk individuals and tailoring preventive treatment, many cardiovascular risk assessment tools have been established and most of them were developed in Western countries. However, these cardiovascular risk assessment tools cannot be used interchangeably without recalibration because of the different risk factor profiles (ie, greater absolute burden of hypertension and lower level of total-cholesterol in Asians and higher prevalence of metabolic disorders in South Asians) and different CVD profiles (higher ratio of stroke/coronary heart disease in Asians) between Western and Asian populations. Original risk models such as Prediction for ASCVD Risk in China (China-PAR) and Japan Arteriosclerosis Longitudinal Study (JALS) score have been developed and well validated for specific countries, while most of countries/regions in Asia are using established models. Due to higher incidence of stroke in Asians, risk factors like hypertension should weigh more in cardiovascular risk assessment comparing with Western populations, but their actual proportions should be based on CVD profiles in specific countries/regions. The authors encourage the development of new cardiovascular risk assessment tools for Asians, if possible. Still, modifying established models with native epidemiological data of risk factor as well as CVD is acceptable in regions where health care resources are insufficient.
Asia is a large continent and there is significant diversity between countries and regions. Over the last 30 years, absolute blood pressure (BP) levels in Asia have increased to a greater extent than those in other regions. In diverse Asia-Pacific populations, for choosing an Asia-specific approach to hypertension management is important to prevent target organ damage and cardiovascular diseases. In this consensus document of HOPE Asia Network, we introduce seven action approaches for management of hypertension in Asia.
Uncontrolled hypertension is a significant problem in many parts of Asia. Effective management is essential to reduce the burden of hypertension. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is a promising tool that can aid in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Experts from 11 countries/regions in Asia conceptualized a large-scale survey to examine the current realities of HBPM. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among health care professionals from China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam between November 2019 and June 2021. Physicians' responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. A total of 7945 physicians participated in the survey. Among all respondents, 50.3% and 33.5% viewed HBPM as highly recognized by physicians and patients in their country/region, respectively. Lack of understanding of HBPM and concern with the accuracy and reliability of HBPM devices were identified as key barriers to HBPM recognition. Nearly all physicians (95.9%) reported recommending HBPM to their patients; however, they reported less than 50% of their patients measured home blood pressure (HBP). Among physicians who recommended HBPM, only 22.4% and 54.1% cited HBP diagnostic threshold values and timing of taking antihypertensive drugs that were consistent with available guidelines, respectively. The survey reveals that the recognition of HBPM as a valuable tool to diagnose and manage hypertension is suboptimal in most parts of Asia. Despite high recommendation of HBPM to hypertensive patients by physicians, there are considerable discrepancies between guidelines recommendations and practice realities. The recognition of HBPM as a valuable tool for the diagnosis and management of hypertension is suboptimal among both physicians and patients in Asia. A clear and consistent guidance for proper HBPM practice and use of validated and calibrated HBP monitors are among the top priorities to support the integration of HBPM into daily patient care. HBPM: home blood pressure monitoring, HBP: home blood pressure.
Recent innovations in digital technology have enabled the simultaneous accumulation, and the linking and analysis of time-series big data relating to several factors that influence blood pressure (BP), including biological indicators, physical activity, and environmental information. Various approaches can be used to monitor BP: in the office/clinic; at home; 24-h ambulatory recording; or with wearable and cuffless devices. Of these, home BP monitoring is a reliable and convenient method, and is recommended for hypertension management by current national and international guidelines. This recommendation is based on evidence showing that home BP is an important predictor of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and kidney disease in patients with hypertension. In addition, lifetime personalized health record (PHR)-based home BP with telemonitoring combined with co-interventions has been shown to lower BP more effectively than the traditional approach based on office BP. Thus, home BP represents a key metric for personalized anticipation medicine, from digital healthcare to digital medicine. This paper summarizes the latest evidence on home BP monitoring and proposes a Hypertension Cardiovascular Outcome Prevention and Evidence in Asia (HOPE Asia) Network consensus on a home BP-centered approach to the management of hypertension.
For adopting recently introduced hypertension phenotypes categorized using office and out of office blood pressure (BP) for the diagnosis of hypertension and antihypertension drug therapy, it is mandatory to define the corresponding out of office BP with the specific target BP recommended by the major guidelines. Such conditions include white-coat hypertension (WCH), masked hypertension (MH), white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH), and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH). Here, the authors review the relevant literature and discuss the related issue to facilitate the use of corresponding BPs for proper diagnosis of WCH, MH, WUCH, and MUCH in the setting of standard target BP as well as intensive target BP. The methodology of deriving the corresponding BP has evolved from statistical methods such as standard deviation, percentile value, and regression to an outcome-based approach using pooled international cohort study data and comparative analysis in randomized clinical trials for target BPs such as the SPRINT and STEP studies. Corresponding BPs to 140/90 and 130/80 mm Hg in office BP is important for safe and strict achievement of intensive BP targets. The corresponding home, daytime, and 24-h BPs to 130/80 mm Hg in office BP are 130/80, 130/80, and 125/75 mm Hg, respectively. However, researchers have found some discrepancies among the home corresponding BPs. As tentative criterion for de-escalation of antihypertensive therapy as shown in European guidelines was 120 mm Hg in office BP, corresponding home, daytime, and 24-h systolic BPs to 120 mm Hg in office systolic BP are 120, 120, and 115 mm Hg, respectively.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although 58 genomic regions have been associated with CAD thus far, most of the heritability is unexplained, indicating that additional susceptibility loci await identification. An efficient discovery strategy may be larger-scale evaluation of promising associations suggested by genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Hence, we genotyped 56,309 participants using a targeted gene array derived from earlier GWAS results and performed meta-analysis of results with 194,427 participants previously genotyped, totaling 88,192 CAD cases and 162,544 controls. We identified 25 new SNP-CAD associations (P < 5 × 10-8, in fixed-effects meta-analysis) from 15 genomic regions, including SNPs in or near genes involved in cellular adhesion, leukocyte migration and atherosclerosis (PECAM1, rs1867624), coagulation and inflammation (PROCR, rs867186 (p.Ser219Gly)) and vascular smooth muscle cell differentiation (LMOD1, rs2820315). Correlation of these regions with cell-type-specific gene expression and plasma protein levels sheds light on potential disease mechanisms.