Limited reproducibility of MUCH and WUCH: evidence from the ELSA study

Giuseppe Mancia1,2, Rita Facchetti3, Cesare Cuspidi3

  • 1University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.

European Heart Journal
|September 21, 2019
PubMed

Insights

Masked (MUCH) and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH) show poor long-term reproducibility. This finding is critical for studies evaluating the prognostic impact of these hypertension types using single blood pressure measurements.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Hypertension Research
  • Clinical Trials

Background:

  • Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH) are recognized clinical conditions.
  • Understanding their long-term stability is crucial for accurate prognostic assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the long-term reproducibility of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH).
  • To inform the design of studies assessing the prognostic impact of these hypertension subtypes.

Main Methods:

  • 1664 hypertensive patients were followed for 4 years in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis.
  • Office and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) were measured annually.
  • Patients were classified for MUCH and WUCH at each measurement point.

Main Results:

  • After 1 year, 21.1% and 17.8% of patients had MUCH and WUCH, respectively.
  • Patient composition for MUCH and WUCH changed significantly over time; only ~1/3 maintained classification.
  • Persistence rates were low: 4.5% for MUCH and 6.2% for WUCH throughout the study.

Conclusions:

  • Both MUCH and WUCH exhibit poor reproducibility over extended periods.
  • The findings highlight the need for multiple BP measurements when assessing the long-term prognostic value of MUCH and WUCH.
Abstract

Related Concept Videos

Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
1.3K
The Scientific Method02:40

The Scientific Method

Research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.
64.8K
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when...
6.9K
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies01:27

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This...
592
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
9.6K
Self-Discrepancy Theory02:45

Self-Discrepancy Theory

One influential perspective on what motivates people's behavior is detailed in Tory Higgin's self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). He proposed that people hold disagreeing internal representations of themselves that lead to different emotional states.  
18.9K