| 1. |
- Teo, Koon K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:4, s. 623-635
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks.Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants.Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n=51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n=14 859), valsartan (four trials, n=44 264), candesartan (four trials, n=18 566), and losartan (one trial, n=9193) and followed for 23-60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n=42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n=63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n=47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n=25 712).Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [ 4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment.Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hansen, Tine W., et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic Thresholds for Ambulatory Blood Pressure Moving Lower : A Review Based on a Meta-Analysis-Clinical Implications
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Hypertension. - : Wiley. - 1524-6175 .- 1751-7176. ; 10:5, s. 377-381
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Upper limits of normal ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) have been a matter of debate in recent years. Current diagnostic thresholds for ABP rely mainly on statistical parameters derived from reference populations. Recent findings from the International Database of Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDACO) provide outcome-driven thresholds for ABP Rounded systolic/diastolic thresholds for optimal ABP were found to be 115/75 mm Hg for 24 hours, 120/80 mm Hg for daytime, and 100/65 mm Hg for nighttime. The corresponding rounded thresholds for normal ABP were 125/75 mm Hg, 130/85 mm Hg, and 110/70 mm Hg, respectively, and those for ambulatory hypertension were 130/80 mm Hg, 140/85 mm Hg, and 120/70 mm Hg. However, in clinical practice, any diagnostic threshold for blood pressure needs to be assessed in the context of the patient's overall risk profile. The IDACO database is therefore being updated with additional population cohorts to enable the construction of multifactorial risk score charts, which also include ABP.
|
|
