Calculation of trough: Peak ratio of antihypertensive treatment from ambulatory blood pressure: Methodological aspects

Stefano Omboni, Gianfranco Parati, Alberto Zanchettit, Giuseppe Mancia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

121 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To address several methodological questions related to calculation of trough:peak ratio from 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Methods: Data from patients with mild essential hypertension who were included in parallel group (n = 280) or cross-over studies (n = 39) were pooled. 24 h ambulatory BP recordings were available after 2- to 4-week washout from treatment and at the end of a 4- to 8-week period of treatment with calcium antagonists (n = 143), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 103) or placebo (73 patients from parallel group studies and 39 from a cross-over study). Each recording started between 0900 and 1000h, immediately after the drug or placebo intake during the treatment phase. BP was measured at 15 min intervals during the day and at 15-20 min intervals during the night. Peak changes were calculated from systolic BP and diastolic BP 2-8 h after drug intake, and trough changes from readings taken during the last 4 h of the 24 h. Results: Peak changes induced by drug treatment were progressively reduced when data were averaged over 1, 2, 4 and 6h. BP reproducibility showed a concomitant increase and the best compromise between correct estimate of peak changes and reproducibility was the average of the adjacent 2h with the maximal BP fall. Peak and trough (average of last 2h) changes showed a normal distribution, whereas trough:peak ratios showed non-normal distributions, large scatters and many individual values with no pharmacodynamic significance (namely, much above unity and below zero). Selecting responders to treatment reduced the dispersion and made the trough: peak ratio distribution normal. There was no correlation between trough: peak ratios and changes in BP variability (standard deviation of 24 h mean) induced by treatment. Placebo administration caused no trough but a modest peak fall. Peak changes during placebo also showed a wide scatter and a non-normal distribution, which makes correction with respect to average peak placebo data inappropriate in parallel-group studies. However, placebo correction may be performed for each subject in cross-over studies, leading to a reduction in peak changes and an increase in trough:peak ratio values. Conclusions: When the trough:peak ratio is assessed from ambulatory BP, peak and trough changes should preferably be computed over a 2h time window. To remove values with no pharmacodynamic significance, the analysis should preferably be conducted only in responders to treatment at peak. Although placebo is accompanied by some peak effect, placebo correction might be appropriate only for individual subjects in cross-over studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1105-1112
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Hypertension
Volume13
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Antihypertensive Agents
Blood Pressure
Placebos
Cross-Over Studies
Therapeutics
Normal Distribution
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Placebo Effect
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Reading
Calcium

Keywords

  • Ambulatory blood pressure
  • Antihypertensive treatment
  • Blood pressure variability
  • Placebo
  • Trough: peak ratio

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Endocrinology

Cite this

Calculation of trough : Peak ratio of antihypertensive treatment from ambulatory blood pressure: Methodological aspects. / Omboni, Stefano; Parati, Gianfranco; Zanchettit, Alberto; Mancia, Giuseppe.

In: Journal of Hypertension, Vol. 13, No. 10, 1995, p. 1105-1112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{883ec935e08f445a9d4982f04888fb22,
title = "Calculation of trough: Peak ratio of antihypertensive treatment from ambulatory blood pressure: Methodological aspects",
abstract = "Objective: To address several methodological questions related to calculation of trough:peak ratio from 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Methods: Data from patients with mild essential hypertension who were included in parallel group (n = 280) or cross-over studies (n = 39) were pooled. 24 h ambulatory BP recordings were available after 2- to 4-week washout from treatment and at the end of a 4- to 8-week period of treatment with calcium antagonists (n = 143), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 103) or placebo (73 patients from parallel group studies and 39 from a cross-over study). Each recording started between 0900 and 1000h, immediately after the drug or placebo intake during the treatment phase. BP was measured at 15 min intervals during the day and at 15-20 min intervals during the night. Peak changes were calculated from systolic BP and diastolic BP 2-8 h after drug intake, and trough changes from readings taken during the last 4 h of the 24 h. Results: Peak changes induced by drug treatment were progressively reduced when data were averaged over 1, 2, 4 and 6h. BP reproducibility showed a concomitant increase and the best compromise between correct estimate of peak changes and reproducibility was the average of the adjacent 2h with the maximal BP fall. Peak and trough (average of last 2h) changes showed a normal distribution, whereas trough:peak ratios showed non-normal distributions, large scatters and many individual values with no pharmacodynamic significance (namely, much above unity and below zero). Selecting responders to treatment reduced the dispersion and made the trough: peak ratio distribution normal. There was no correlation between trough: peak ratios and changes in BP variability (standard deviation of 24 h mean) induced by treatment. Placebo administration caused no trough but a modest peak fall. Peak changes during placebo also showed a wide scatter and a non-normal distribution, which makes correction with respect to average peak placebo data inappropriate in parallel-group studies. However, placebo correction may be performed for each subject in cross-over studies, leading to a reduction in peak changes and an increase in trough:peak ratio values. Conclusions: When the trough:peak ratio is assessed from ambulatory BP, peak and trough changes should preferably be computed over a 2h time window. To remove values with no pharmacodynamic significance, the analysis should preferably be conducted only in responders to treatment at peak. Although placebo is accompanied by some peak effect, placebo correction might be appropriate only for individual subjects in cross-over studies.",
keywords = "Ambulatory blood pressure, Antihypertensive treatment, Blood pressure variability, Placebo, Trough: peak ratio",
author = "Stefano Omboni and Gianfranco Parati and Alberto Zanchettit and Giuseppe Mancia",
year = "1995",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "1105--1112",
journal = "Journal of Hypertension",
issn = "0263-6352",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Calculation of trough

T2 - Peak ratio of antihypertensive treatment from ambulatory blood pressure: Methodological aspects

AU - Omboni, Stefano

AU - Parati, Gianfranco

AU - Zanchettit, Alberto

AU - Mancia, Giuseppe

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Objective: To address several methodological questions related to calculation of trough:peak ratio from 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Methods: Data from patients with mild essential hypertension who were included in parallel group (n = 280) or cross-over studies (n = 39) were pooled. 24 h ambulatory BP recordings were available after 2- to 4-week washout from treatment and at the end of a 4- to 8-week period of treatment with calcium antagonists (n = 143), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 103) or placebo (73 patients from parallel group studies and 39 from a cross-over study). Each recording started between 0900 and 1000h, immediately after the drug or placebo intake during the treatment phase. BP was measured at 15 min intervals during the day and at 15-20 min intervals during the night. Peak changes were calculated from systolic BP and diastolic BP 2-8 h after drug intake, and trough changes from readings taken during the last 4 h of the 24 h. Results: Peak changes induced by drug treatment were progressively reduced when data were averaged over 1, 2, 4 and 6h. BP reproducibility showed a concomitant increase and the best compromise between correct estimate of peak changes and reproducibility was the average of the adjacent 2h with the maximal BP fall. Peak and trough (average of last 2h) changes showed a normal distribution, whereas trough:peak ratios showed non-normal distributions, large scatters and many individual values with no pharmacodynamic significance (namely, much above unity and below zero). Selecting responders to treatment reduced the dispersion and made the trough: peak ratio distribution normal. There was no correlation between trough: peak ratios and changes in BP variability (standard deviation of 24 h mean) induced by treatment. Placebo administration caused no trough but a modest peak fall. Peak changes during placebo also showed a wide scatter and a non-normal distribution, which makes correction with respect to average peak placebo data inappropriate in parallel-group studies. However, placebo correction may be performed for each subject in cross-over studies, leading to a reduction in peak changes and an increase in trough:peak ratio values. Conclusions: When the trough:peak ratio is assessed from ambulatory BP, peak and trough changes should preferably be computed over a 2h time window. To remove values with no pharmacodynamic significance, the analysis should preferably be conducted only in responders to treatment at peak. Although placebo is accompanied by some peak effect, placebo correction might be appropriate only for individual subjects in cross-over studies.

AB - Objective: To address several methodological questions related to calculation of trough:peak ratio from 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Methods: Data from patients with mild essential hypertension who were included in parallel group (n = 280) or cross-over studies (n = 39) were pooled. 24 h ambulatory BP recordings were available after 2- to 4-week washout from treatment and at the end of a 4- to 8-week period of treatment with calcium antagonists (n = 143), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 103) or placebo (73 patients from parallel group studies and 39 from a cross-over study). Each recording started between 0900 and 1000h, immediately after the drug or placebo intake during the treatment phase. BP was measured at 15 min intervals during the day and at 15-20 min intervals during the night. Peak changes were calculated from systolic BP and diastolic BP 2-8 h after drug intake, and trough changes from readings taken during the last 4 h of the 24 h. Results: Peak changes induced by drug treatment were progressively reduced when data were averaged over 1, 2, 4 and 6h. BP reproducibility showed a concomitant increase and the best compromise between correct estimate of peak changes and reproducibility was the average of the adjacent 2h with the maximal BP fall. Peak and trough (average of last 2h) changes showed a normal distribution, whereas trough:peak ratios showed non-normal distributions, large scatters and many individual values with no pharmacodynamic significance (namely, much above unity and below zero). Selecting responders to treatment reduced the dispersion and made the trough: peak ratio distribution normal. There was no correlation between trough: peak ratios and changes in BP variability (standard deviation of 24 h mean) induced by treatment. Placebo administration caused no trough but a modest peak fall. Peak changes during placebo also showed a wide scatter and a non-normal distribution, which makes correction with respect to average peak placebo data inappropriate in parallel-group studies. However, placebo correction may be performed for each subject in cross-over studies, leading to a reduction in peak changes and an increase in trough:peak ratio values. Conclusions: When the trough:peak ratio is assessed from ambulatory BP, peak and trough changes should preferably be computed over a 2h time window. To remove values with no pharmacodynamic significance, the analysis should preferably be conducted only in responders to treatment at peak. Although placebo is accompanied by some peak effect, placebo correction might be appropriate only for individual subjects in cross-over studies.

KW - Ambulatory blood pressure

KW - Antihypertensive treatment

KW - Blood pressure variability

KW - Placebo

KW - Trough: peak ratio

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028846991&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028846991&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8586802

AN - SCOPUS:0028846991

VL - 13

SP - 1105

EP - 1112

JO - Journal of Hypertension

JF - Journal of Hypertension

SN - 0263-6352

IS - 10

ER -