[Three simple steps for improving diagnostic accuracy in hypertension.]

Most patients have only had three measurements of blood pressure before being labelled as hypertensive. This abbreviated assessment may lead to inaccurate classification, unnecessary treatment and dilution in treatment benefit for the population. We aimed to explore how accurate current methods are in diagnosing mild hypertension, and to explore practical methods of improving targeting of antihypertensive treatment using clinic visits but without lengthy observation.

We applied current diagnostic methods to 3965 individuals with mild hypertension who were followed for a year in the placebo arm of the MRC Mild Hypertension Trial (Medical Research Council). We thus calculated the proportion selected for treatment by current methods and the diagnostic accuracy, using average blood pressure beyond six months as representing "true" long-term blood pressure. We looked at the benefit of averaging blood pressures, prolonging observation modestly and estimating within-person blood pressure variability.

Prolonging observation to three months selects a smaller (by about 12%) proportion of the sample for treatment. At three months the proportion of the sample selected is similar to the proportion defined as "truly" hypertensive. The diagnostic accuracy of current methods is poor with up to 69% discrepancy in classification. This discrepancy was improved in absolute terms by up to 18% by prolonging observation to three months and using average blood pressures. Identifying those individuals with low within-person variability allows marked improvement in the prediction of "true" hypertension.

Although some inaccuracy in the diagnosis of hypertension is inevitable, observation for three months, averaging blood pressures and estimating within-person blood pressure variability can markedly improve upon current methods used for targeting antihypertensive treatment.