The available evidence suggests a moderate but significant association between ambulatory BP and preclinical organ damage, mainly based on studies in nephropathy and/or diabetes. More data are needed in essential hypertension without nephropathy or diabetes, as well as with home measurements.

Patient's preference might influence compliance with antihypertensive treatment and thereby long-term blood pressure (BP) control. This study compared patients' preference in using ambulatory (ABPM) versus home BP monitoring (HBPM). Subjects referred for hypertension were evaluated with 24-h ABPM and 7-day HBPM. Participants filled a questionnaire including demographics and Likert scale questions regarding their acceptance, preference, disturbance, activity restriction and feasibility of using ABPM and HBPM. A total of 119 patients were invited and 104 (87%) were included (mean age 51±11 years, 58% men, 38% time to work >8 h). A total of 82% reported a positive overall opinion for HBPM versus 63% for ABPM (P<0.05). 62% considered ABPM as more reliable than HBPM but 60% would choose HBPM for their next BP evaluation (P<0.05 for both comparisons). Moderate to severe discomfort from ABPM was reported by 55% and severe restriction of their daily activities by 30% compared with 13% and 7%, respectively, from HBPM (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The overall score for HBPM and ABPM (range 4-25; higher score indicating worse performance) was 6.6±2.5 and 10±4.0 (mean difference 4.4±4.6, P<0.001), respectively. In binary logistic regression models, neither previous experience with BP monitoring nor demographic characteristics appeared to influence patients' preference. These data suggest that HBPM is superior to ABPM in terms of overall acceptance and preference by hypertensive patients. Patients' preference deserves further research and should be taken into account in decision making in clinical practice.

No abstract

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, research has been focused on establishing effective treatments, especially for patients with severe pneumonia and hyperinflammation. The role and dose of corticosteroids remain obscure. We evaluated 58 patients with severe COVID-19 during two periods. 24 patients who received methylprednisolone pulses (250 mg/day intravenously for 3 days) were compared with 34 patients treated according to the standard dexamethasone protocol of 6 mg/day. Among non-intubated patients, the duration of hospitalization was shorter for those who received methylprednisolone pulses (9.5 vs 13.5, p<0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who required intubation, those treated with the dexamethasone protocol demonstrated a relative risk=1.89 (p=0.09) for dying, in contrast to the other group which showed a tendency towards extubation and discharge from the hospital. A ‘delayed’ need for intubation was also observed (6 vs 2 days, p=0.06). Treatment with methylprednisolone pulses significantly reduced hospitalization time. Although there was no statistically significant influence on the necessity for intubation, methylprednisolone pulses revealed a tendency to delay intubation and hospital discharges. This treatment could benefit patients in the hyperinflammatory phase of the disease.

No abstract