PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8744545

White coat hypertension.

Abstract

Several recent studies of white coat hypertension have confirmed that it occurs in 20% or more of the hypertensive population. White coat hypertension appears to be a low-risk condition because it is associated with little or no organ damage, and is not usually associated with the metabolic abnormalities characteristic of sustained hypertension, such as high plasma lipid levels. Thus the cutoff point used to define white coat hypertension is increasingly being used as a treatment threshold. An alternative approach for defining treatment thresholds has been the study of ambulatory blood pressure in normotensive populations, taking the 95th percentile as the upper limit of normal. This approach yields unacceptably high cutoff points. Studies of the white coat effect, defined as the difference between clinic and ambulatory pressure, have shown that it is more pronounced in patients with more severe hypertension, and that it does not correlate with target organ damage. Drug treatment of white coat hypertension often results in a reduction of clinic pressure more than of ambulatory pressure, but the white coat effect is still seen in treated patients. One recently published study indicates that the prognosis of white coat hypertensive patients in benign.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T G Pickering. 1996. White coat hypertension.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00041552-199603000-00017

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Tree-structured gatekeeping tests in clinical trials with hierarchically ordered multiple objectives.

This paper discusses a new class of multiple testing procedures, tree-structured gatekeeping procedures, with clinical trial applications. These procedures arise in clinical trials with hierarchically ordered multiple objectives, for example, in the context of multiple dose-control tests with logical restrictions or analysis of multiple endpoints. The proposed approach is based on the principle of closed testing and generalizes the serial and parallel gatekeeping approaches developed by Westfall and Krishen (J. Statist. Planning Infer. 2001; 99:25-41) and Dmitrienko et al. (Statist. Med. 2003; 22:2387-2400). The proposed testing methodology is illustrated using a clinical trial with multiple endpoints (primary, secondary and tertiary) and multiple objectives (superiority and non-inferiority testing) as well as a dose-finding trial with multiple endpoints.

Antihypertensive Agents↗

Bayesian analysis of latent variable models with non-ignorable missing outcomes from exponential family.

To provide a comprehensive framework for analysing complex non-normal medical and biological data, we propose a Bayesian approach for a non-linear latent variable model with covariates, and non-ignorable missing data, under the exponential family of distributions. The non-ignorable missing mechanism is defined via a logistic regression model. Based on conjugate prior distributions, full conditional distributions for the implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in simulating observations from the joint posterior distribution are derived. These observations are used in computing the Bayesian estimates, as well as in implementing a path sampling procedure to evaluate the Bayes factor for model comparison. The proposed methods are illustrated using real data from a study on the non-adherence of hypertension patients.

Antihypertensive Agents↗

Revisiting the relation between change and initial value: a review and evaluation.

The relation between initial disease status and subsequent change following treatment has attracted great interest in clinical research. However, statisticians have repeatedly warned against correlating/regressing change with baseline due to two methodological concerns known as mathematical coupling and regression to the mean. Oldham's method and Blomqvist's formula are the two most often adopted methods to rectify these problems. The aims of this article are to review briefly the proposed solutions in the statistical and psychological literature, and to clarify the popular misconception that Blomqvist's formula is superior to Oldham's method. We argue that this misconception is due to a failure to recognize that the heterogeneity of individual responses to treatment is a source of regression to the mean in the analysis of the relation between change and initial value. Furthermore, we demonstrate how each method actually answers different research questions, and how confusion arises when this is not always understood.

Antihypertensive Agents↗