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. |
- Vishram, Julie K.K., et al.
(författare)
-
Blood pressure variability predicts cardiovascular events independently of traditional cardiovascular risk factors and target organ damage : a LIFE substudy
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 33:12, s. 2422-2430
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Assessment of antihypertensive treatment is normally based on the mean value of a number of blood pressure (BP) measurements. However, it is uncertain whether high in-treatment visit-to-visit BP variability may be harmful in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH).Methods: In 8505 patients randomized to losartan vs. atenolol-based treatment in the LIFE study, we tested whether BP variability assessed as SD and range for BP6-24months measured at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of treatment was associated with target organ damage (TOD) defined by LVH on ECG and urine albumin/creatinine ratio at 24 months, and predicted the composite endpoint (CEP) of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke occurring after 24 months (CEP=630 events).Results: In multiple regression models adjusted for mean BP6-24months and treatment allocation, neither high BP6-24months SD nor wide range were related to TOD at 24 months, except for a weak association between Sokolow-Lyon voltage and DBP6-24months SD and range (both b=0.04, P<0.01). Independently of mean BP6-24months, treatment allocation, TOD and baseline characteristics in Cox regression models, CEP after 24 months was associated with DBP6-24months SD [hazard ratio per 1mmHg increase1.04, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.01-1.06, P=0.005], range (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03, P=0.004), SBP6-24months SD (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.02, P=0.07) and range (hazard ratio 1.006, 95% CI 1.001-1.01, P=0.04). Adjusted for the same factors, stroke was associated with DBP6-24months SD (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P=0.001), range (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, P=0.001), SBP6-24months SD (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 1.002-1.04, P=0.04) and range (hazard ratio 1.008, 95% CI 1.001-1.02, P=0.05), but MI was not.Conclusion: In LIFE patients, higher in-treatment BP6-24months variability was independently of mean BP6-24months associated with later CEP and stroke, but not with MI or TOD after 24 months.
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Olsen, Michael H., et al.
(författare)
-
Changes in subclinical organ damage vs. in Framingham risk score for assessing cardiovascular risk reduction during continued antihypertensive treatment : a LIFE substudy
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:5, s. 997-1004
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: To investigate whether in-treatment measurements of subclinical organ damage (SOD) assessed by elevated urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) or electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy improved the prediction of the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke beyond in-treatment Framingham risk score (FRS).Methods: Excluding patients with a composite cardiovascular endpoint within the first year of treatment, 598 endpoints occurred in 6460 patients from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study with baseline and 1 year values for UACR, left ventricular hypertrophy by electrocardiography and FRS available.Results: Using Cox-regression analyses, FRS1year [hazard ratio = 1.006 (0.98-1.04)] did not predict the endpoint independently of history of cardiovascular disease [hazard ratio = 1.76 (1.49-2.08)], FRSbaseline [hazard ratio = 1.07 (1.04-1.11)], UACR(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.15 (1.07-1.23), all three P < 0.001], Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.01 (1.006-1.02), P < 0.01] and treatment allocation, whereas Cornell product(1yea)r [hazard ratio = 1.01 (1.006-1.02), P < 0.001] and to some degree UACR(1year) [hazard ratio = 1.05 (0.99-1.10), P = 0.09] predicted the endpoint independently of history of cardiovascular disease [hazard ratio = 1.71 (1.44-2.02)], FRSbaseline [hazard ratio = 1.08 (1.06-1.10)], Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.01 (1.007-1.02), both P < 0.001], UACR(baseline) [hazard ratio = 1.11 (1.03-1.20), P < 0.01] and treatment allocation decreasing -2 Log likelihood significantly (P < 0.01).Presence of left ventricular hypertrophy by Cornell product1year or UACR(1year) at least 1 mmol/l [hazard ratio = 1.40 (1.15-1.70), P = 0.001] but not FRS1year above the median baseline value of 20 [hazard ratio = 1.22 (0.94-1.57), not significant] was associated with higher risk of subsequent endpoint after adjustment for history of cardiovascular disease [hazard ratio = 1.82 (1.54-2.15)], FRSbaseline at least 20 [hazard ratio = 1.67 (1.30-2.16)], left ventricular hypertrophy by Sokolow-Lyonbaseline or UACR(baseline) at least 1 mmol/l [hazard ratio = 1.61 (1.33-1.94), all P < 0.001] and treatment allocation [hazard ratio = 0.93 (0.79-1.09), not significant]. In contrast to FRS1year at least 20 decreased, SOD1year decreased -2Log likelihood significantly (P < 0.01).Conclusion: Cornell product(1year) and UACR(1year) improved in contrast to FRS1year risk prediction based on FRSbaseline, Sokolow-Lyon(baseline) and UACR(baseline) significantly in LIFE patients during antihypertensive treatment.
|
|