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.

Objectives: Blood pressure (BP) measurement in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients is problematic and automated monitors are regarded as inaccurate. The optimal procedure for validating BP monitors in AF is questionable. This study evaluated the accuracy of a novel professional oscillometric upper-arm cuff device (Microlife WatchBP Office), which has an algorithm for detecting AF and then applies an AF-specific BP measurement algorithm. BP variability, which is inherently increased in AF patients, was considered in the analysis. Methods: Subjects with sustained AF were included in a validation study using the same arm sequential measurement method of the Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) for special populations. Analysis was performed in all subjects and separately in those with and without high reference BP variability (>12/8 mmHg SBP/DBP). Results: Thirty-five subjects with 105 paired test/reference BP measurements were included (mean age 76.3 ± 8.4 years, reference SBP/DBP 128.2 ± 19.5/72.5 ± 12.1 mmHg, pulse rate 68.3 ± 14.9 bpm). Validation Criterion 1 (mean difference ± SD) was 0.0 ± 7.7/0.2 ± 7.0 mmHg in all 105 BP pairs (threshold ≤5 ± 8 mmHg). Criterion 1 was 0.5 ± 6.1/−0.2 ± 6.8 mmHg in 18 subjects (54 BP pairs) with low reference BP variability and −0.6 ± 9.2/0.6 ± 7.3 mmHg in 17 (51 pairs) with high variability. Criterion 1 did not differ in pulse rate < 70 vs. ≥ 70 bpm Validation Criterion 2 (SD of differences for 35 individuals) was 5.38/6.20 mmHg (SBP/DBP; threshold ≤6.95/6.95). Conclusion: A technology which detects AF and activates an AF-specific BP measurement algorithm introduces a challenging solution for clinical practice. Validation of BP monitors in AF patients should not ignore their inherently high BP variability.