| 1. |
- Andersen, Mette K., et al.
(författare)
-
Paediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia with t(1;19)(q23;p13) : clinical and cytogenetic characteristics of 47 cases from the Nordic countries treated according to NOPHO protocols
- 2011
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Haematology. - Oxford : Wiley. - 0007-1048 .- 1365-2141. ; 155:2, s. 235-243
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The translocation t(1;19)(q23;p13)/der(19) t(1;19) is a risk stratifying aberration in childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (BCP ALL) in the Nordic countries. We have identified 47 children/adolescents with t(1;19)/der(19) t(1;19)-positive BCP ALL treated on two successive Nordic Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology (NOPHO) protocols between 1992 and 2007 and have reviewed the clinical and cytogenetic characteristics of these cases, comprising 1.8% of all cases. The translocation was balanced in 15 cases (32%) and unbalanced in 29 cases (62%). The most common additional chromosome abnormalities were del(9p), i(9q), del(6q), and del(13q). The median age was 7 years, the median white blood cell (WBC) count was 16 x 10(9)/l, and the female/male ratio was 1.2. The predicted event-free survival (EFS) at 5 and 10 years was 0.79, whereas the predicted overall survival (OS) at 5 and 10 years was 0.85 and 0.82, respectively. Nine patients had a bone marrow relapse after a median of 23 months; no patient had a central nervous system relapse. Additional cytogenetic abnormalities, age, gender, WBC count or whether the t(1;19) was balanced or unbalanced did not influence EFS or OS. Compared to cases with t(12,21) and high hyperdiploidy, EFS was similar, but overall survival was worse in patients with t(1;19)/der(19) t(1;19) (P = 0.004).
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Brunström, Mattias, 1988-
(författare)
-
Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels
- 2017
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- BackgroundHigh blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. The shape of association between blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular events is debated. Some researchers suggest that the association is linear or log-linear, whereas others suggest it is J-shaped. Randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatment have been successful in hypertension, but ambiguous in the high normal blood pressure range. Previous systematic reviews have not found any interaction between baseline systolic blood pressure and treatment effect, with beneficial effects at systolic blood pressure levels well below what is currently recommended. These reviews, however, use a method to standardize treatment effects and study weights according to within-trial blood pressure differences that may introduce bias.MethodsWe performed two systematic reviews to assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease and mortality at different blood pressure levels. The first review was limited to people with diabetes mellitus. The second review included all patient categories except those with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. Both reviews were designed with guidance from Cochrane Collaborations Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials assessing any antihypertensive agent against placebo or any blood pressure targets against each other. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline systolic blood pressure. Non-stratified analyses were performed for coronary heart disease trials and post-stroke trials. Interaction between blood pressure level and treatment effect was assessed with Cochran’s Q in the first review, and multivariable-adjusted metaregression in the second review.The third paper builds on data from the second paper, and assesses the effect of standardization according to within-trial blood pressure differences on the results of meta-analyses. We performed non-standardized analyses, analyses with standardized treatment effects, and analyses with standardized treatment effects and standard errors. We compared treatment effect measures and heterogeneity across different methods of standardization. We also compared treatment effect estimates between fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses within each method of standardization. Lastly, we assessed the association between number of events and study weights, using linear regression.ResultsForty-nine trials assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in people with diabetes mellitus. Treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction decreased with lower baseline systolic blood pressure. Treatment reduced the risk of death and cardiovascular disease if baseline systolic blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher. If baseline systolic blood pressure was below 140 mm Hg, however, treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular death by 15 % (0-32 %).Fifty-one trials assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in primary prevention. Treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, and heart failure decreased with lower baseline systolic blood pressure. If baseline systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or higher treatment reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by 22 % (95 % confidence interval 13-30 %). If systolic blood pressure was 140-159 mm Hg treatment reduced the risk by 12 % (4-20 %), whereas if systolic blood pressure was below 140 mm Hg, treatment effect was neutral (4 % increase to 10 % reduction). All-cause mortality was reduced if systolic blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher, with neutral effect at lower levels.Twelve trials compared antihypertensive treatment against placebo in people with coronary heart disease. Mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg. Treatment reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by 10 % (3-16 %), whereas the effect on mortality was neutral (7 % increase to 11 % reduction).Standardization of treatment effects resulted in more extreme effect estimates for individual trials. This caused increased between-study heterogeneity, and different results with fixed- and random-effects model. Standardization of standard errors shifted weights from trials with many events to trials with large blood pressure differences. This caused biased overall effect estimates. Standardization of standard errors also resulted in wider confidence intervals, masking the previously increased heterogeneity. This reduced the possibility to find different treatment effects at different blood pressure levels.Conclusion The effect of antihypertensive treatment depends on blood pressure level before treatment. Treatment reduces the risk of death and cardiovascular disease if baseline systolic blood pressure is 140 mm Hg or higher. Below this level, treatment is potentially harmful in people with diabetes, has neutral effect in primary prevention, but might offer additional protection in people with coronary heart disease. Standardization should generally be avoided in meta-analyses of antihypertensive treatment. Previous meta-analyses using standardized methods should be interpreted with caution.
|
|
| 4. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of antihypertensive treatment in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) : systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Blood Pressure. - : Taylor & Francis Group. - 0803-7051 .- 1651-1999. ; 32:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg.METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level.RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction).CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Copland, Emma, et al.
(författare)
-
Antihypertensive treatment and risk of cancer : an individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 22:4, s. 558-570
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Findings 33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4?2 years (IQR 3?0?5?0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0?99 [95% CI 0?95?1?04] for ACEIs; 0?96 [0?92?1?01] for ARBs; 0?98 [0?89?1?07] for 13 blockers; 1?01 [0?95?1?07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1?06 [1?01?1?11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1?00 [95% CI 0?93?1?09] for ACEIs; 0?99 [0?92?1?06] for ARBs; 0?99 [0?89?1?11] for 13 blockers; 1?04 [0?96?1?13] for calcium channel blockers; 1?00 [0?90?1?10] for thiazides). Summary Background Some studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), 13 blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283). Findings 33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4 & middot;2 years (IQR 3 & middot;0 & ndash;5 & middot;0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0 & middot;99 [95% CI 0 & middot;95 & ndash;1 & middot;04] for ACEIs; 0 & middot;96 [0 & middot;92 & ndash;1 & middot;01] for ARBs; 0 & middot;98 [0 & middot;89 & ndash;1 & middot;07] for 13 blockers; 1 & middot;01 [0 & middot;95 & ndash;1 & middot;07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1 & middot;06 [1 & middot;01 & ndash;1 & middot;11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1 & middot;00 [95% CI 0 & middot;93 & ndash;1 & middot;09] for ACEIs; 0 & middot;99 [0 & middot;92 & ndash;1 & middot;06] for ARBs; 0 & middot;99 [0 & middot;89 & ndash;1 & middot;11] for 13 blockers; 1 & middot;04 [0 & middot;96 & ndash;1 & middot;13] for calcium channel blockers; 1 & middot;00 [0 & middot;90 & ndash;1 & middot;10] for thiazides). Interpretation We found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Gerdts, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Ingrid Toft (June 2, 1959-April 26, 2014)
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Blood Pressure. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0803-7051 .- 1651-1999. ; 23:4, s. 255-255
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
