Clinic blood pressure (BP) may differ substantially from BP measured outside of the clinic using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM).1, 2 White coat hypertension is a well-recognised phenomenon, describing individuals with elevated clinic BP but non-elevated out-of-clinic BP.3 What Pickering et al. coined in 2002 as masked hypertension is the opposite phenomenon, non-elevated clinic BP but elevated out-of-clinic BP.1 As compared to white coat hypertension, masked hypertension remains a generally unrecognised and under-diagnosed clinical problem. This is true despite the consistent evidence that there is an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and target organ damage associated with masked hypertension.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 To better understand and affect the clinical impact of masked hypertension, we must overcome many of the knowledge gaps regarding its diagnosis and management.
Pickering first defined masked hypertension as having non-elevated clinic BP and elevated daytime BP on ABPM.1, 3 Over the subsequent decade, the definition of masked hypertension has expanded. In addition to elevated daytime BP, the 2013 European Society of Hypertension position paper also includes the use of elevated 24-h BP or elevated nighttime BP which may each be used to diagnose masked hypertension.3 However, the presence of multiple approaches to diagnose masked hypertension poses new challenges. It is unclear what is the true prevalence of masked hypertension in the population. The prevalence of masked hypertension among adults with non-elevated clinic BP has been reported to be 10–17% using daytime measurements.6 However, the estimate of masked hypertension prevalence reaches as high as 52% when using daytime, 24-h and nighttime BP measurements.7 It is also unknown which measurements should be used to define masked hypertension in clinical practice. When interpreting ABPM for diagnosing masked hypertension, should clinicians concern themselves about a specific definition of masked hypertension? Do particular measurements (that is, daytime, 24-h, or nighttime) best correlate with outcomes among those with non-elevated clinic BP?
How to best measure out-of-clinic BP to diagnose masked hypertension is also unclear. There are currently two well-accepted approaches for obtaining out-of-clinic BP measurements: ABPM and HBPM. However, it has yet to be determined which, if either, may be the better tool to diagnose masked hypertension. As compared to HBPM, ABPM has the advantage of measuring nighttime BP measurements and assessing diurnal patterns. On the other hand, HBPM may be more practical as it is less cumbersome for the patient and more widely available.2, 8, 9 Although guidelines, scientific statements and position papers commonly recommend ABPM over HBPM for assessing out-of-clinic BP, the data supporting one modality over the other for predicting CVD events is inconclusive. A recent systematic review examined studies using both ABPM and HBPM to determine whether either method was more strongly associated with CVD events and mortality.9 While ABPM and HBPM were each associated with outcomes, the authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to consider either modality to be superior. Further, a study by Stergiou et al.10 found substantial disagreement between ABPM and HBPM when used to identify masked hypertension. Only 44% of participants had masked hypertension on both modalities. It is unclear whether individuals with masked hypertension on ABPM but not HBPM have a higher risk of CVD events than individuals with masked hypertension on HBPM but not ABPM. Clarifying the optimal strategy to measure out-of-clinic BP for identifying masked hypertension is crucial if we hope to translate masked hypertension to clinical practice.
Further, who should be screened for masked hypertension is unknown and major society guidelines and position papers have not offered specific direction.6, 11 Screening all individuals with non-elevated clinic BP is impractical. Booth et al.12 demonstrated that such an approach would require 118.6 million adults in the US to undergo out-of-clinic BP measurement. A more practical strategy may be the use of targeted screening, specifically restricting ABPM or HBPM use to those individuals with one or more risk factors for masked hypertension. Several studies have shown that prehypertension (clinic BP 120–139/80–89 mm Hg) is associated with a higher prevalence of masked hypertension.13 Booth et al.12 found that limiting screening to only those individuals in the pre-hypertensive range would still require 59.3 million US adults to undergo ABPM. An alternative approach could be to screen a smaller number of individuals who have multiple risk factors for masked hypertension such as elevated clinic BP, older age, male sex, smoking and diabetes.2 Without empiric evidence regarding best screening practices for masked hypertension, it is unlikely that ABPM or HBPM will be routinely incorporated into decisions regarding the diagnosis and management of masked hypertension.
The final and possibly most important hurdle is to determine the role for treatment of masked hypertension. Prior randomised controlled trials examining the effect of antihypertensive medication on CVD outcomes rely on clinic BP measurements to make decisions about study eligibility and to determine whether BP goals are being met.6, 14 The 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines gave IIa recommendation that lifestyle and antihypertensive medication therapy should be considered for individuals with masked hypertension,6 suggesting that clinicians should also focus on out-of-clinic BP for treating hypertension. These recommendations were supported by level C evidence—based primarily on consensus opinion, small registries and cohort studies. To date there have been no randomised trials examining the effects of treating masked hypertension either by lifestyle modification or antihypertension medication on CVD events. Such trials must get underway if we are to determine the clinical impact of treating masked hypertension.
White coat hypertension has been recognised in current clinical guidelines. Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommended that out-of-clinic BP measurement be undertaken to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and exclude white coat hypertension.15 Currently, masked hypertension, which has important predictive value for CVD events, has been less integrated in hypertension guidelines and clinical practice compared with white coat hypertension. To further develop our understanding of masked hypertension, the next steps are clear. Addressing knowledge gaps are achievable goals and, given the high prevalence and associated risks of masked hypertension, it is imperative that we start to pursue them.
References
Pickering TG, Davidson K, Gerin W, Schwartz JE . Masked hypertension. Hypertension 2002; 40 (6): 795–796.
Peacock J, Diaz KM, Viera AJ, Schwartz JE, Shimbo D . Unmasking masked hypertension: prevalence, clinical implications, diagnosis, correlates and future directions. J Hum Hypertens 2014; 28 (9): 521–528.
O'Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G et al. European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens 2013; 31 (9): 1731–1768.
Pierdomenico SD, Cuccurullo F . Prognostic value of white-coat and masked hypertension diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects: an updated meta analysis. Am J Hypertens 2011; 24 (1): 52–58.
Franklin SS, O'Brien E, Thijs L, Asayama K, Staessen JA . Masked hypertension: a phenomenon of measurement. Hypertension 2015; 65 (1): 16–20.
Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redón J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M et al. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2013; 31 (7): 1281–1357.
Booth JN 3rd, Diaz KM, Seals SR, Sims M, Ravenell J, Muntner P et al. Masked hypertension and cardiovascular disease events in a prospective cohort of blacks: the jackson heart study. Hypertension 2016; 68 (2): 501–510.
Shimbo D, Abdalla M, Falzon L, Townsend RR, Muntner P . Role of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163 (9): 691–700.
Redmond N, Booth JN 3rd, Tanner RM, Diaz KM, Abdalla M, Sims M et al. Prevalence of masked hypertension and its association with subclinical cardiovascular disease in African Americans: results from the jackson heart study. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 4 (3): e002284.
Stergiou GS, Salgami EV, Tzamouranis DG, Roussias LG . Masked hypertension assessed by ambulatory blood pressure versus home blood pressure monitoring: is it the same phenomenon? Am J Hypertens 2005; 18 (6): 772–778.
Hackam DG, Quinn RR, Ravani P, Rabi DM, Dasgupta K, Daskalopoulou SS et al. The 2013 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29 (5): 528–542.
Booth JN 3rd, Muntner P, Diaz KM, Viera AJ, Bello NA, Schwartz JE et al. Evaluation of criteria to detect masked hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2016; 18 (11): 1086–1094.
Shimbo D, Newman JD, Schwartz JE . Masked hypertension and prehypertension: diagnostic overlap and interrelationships with left ventricular mass: the masked hypertension study. Am J Hypertens 2012; 25 (6): 664–671.
James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, Cushman WC, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, Handler J et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311 (5): 507–520.
Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163(10): 778–786..
Acknowledgements
Dr D Shimbo receives support through K24-HL125704 from the NHLBI. Dr DE Anstey receives support through 2T32HL007854-21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anstey, D., Shimbo, D. Masked hypertension—what lies ahead?. J Hum Hypertens 31, 545–546 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2017.11
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2017.11
This article is cited by
-
Masked Hypertension in CKD: Increased Prevalence and Risk for Cardiovascular and Renal Events
Current Cardiology Reports (2019)
-
An Update on Masked Hypertension
Current Hypertension Reports (2017)