| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Padmanabhan, Sandosh, et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-Wide Association Study of Blood Pressure Extremes Identifies Variant near UMOD Associated with Hypertension
- 2010
-
Ingår i: PLoS Genetics. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1553-7404. ; 6:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hypertension is a heritable and major contributor to the global burden of disease. The sum of rare and common genetic variants robustly identified so far explain only 1%-2% of the population variation in BP and hypertension. This suggests the existence of more undiscovered common variants. We conducted a genome-wide association study in 1,621 hypertensive cases and 1,699 controls and follow-up validation analyses in 19,845 cases and 16,541 controls using an extreme case-control design. We identified a locus on chromosome 16 in the 59 region of Uromodulin (UMOD; rs13333226, combined P value of 3.6x10(-11)). The minor G allele is associated with a lower risk of hypertension (OR [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.84-0.91]), reduced urinary uromodulin excretion, better renal function; and each copy of the G allele is associated with a 7.7% reduction in risk of CVD events after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and smoking status (H.R. = 0.923, 95% CI 0.860-0.991; p = 0.027). In a subset of 13,446 individuals with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurements, we show that rs13333226 is independently associated with hypertension (unadjusted for eGFR: 0.89 [0.83-0.96], p = 0.004; after eGFR adjustment: 0.89 [0.83-0.96], p = 0.003). In clinical functional studies, we also consistently show the minor G allele is associated with lower urinary uromodulin excretion. The exclusive expression of uromodulin in the thick portion of the ascending limb of Henle suggests a putative role of this variant in hypertension through an effect on sodium homeostasis. The newly discovered UMOD locus for hypertension has the potential to give new insights into the role of uromodulin in BP regulation and to identify novel drugable targets for reducing cardiovascular risk.
|
|
| 8. |
- Neisius, Ulf, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of central and peripheral pulse pressure with intermediate cardiovascular phenoytpes.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 1473-5598. ; 30:1, s. 67-74
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: We assessed the relationship between pulse pressure and intermediate cardiovascular phenotypes in a middle-aged cohort with high prevalence of hypertension. BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that central pulse pressure (cPP) is a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than peripheral pulse pressure (pPP), particularly in the elderly. Yet, it is unclear if cPP provides additional prognostic information to pPP in younger individuals. METHODS: In 535 individuals we assessed cPP and pPP as well as the intermediate cardiovascular phenotypes pulse wave velocity (PWV; SphygmoCor, Complior, PulsePen), carotid intima-media thickness (C-IMT; carotid ultrasound), left-ventricular mass index (LVMI; echocardiography) and urinary albumin : creatinine ratio (ACR). cPP was derived noninvasively from brachial blood pressure by pulse wave analysis (PWA; SphygmoCor) based on radial pulse wave tonometry and a validated transfer function. RESULTS: The cohort contained 331 hypertensive participants of whom 84% were treated. The average age was 46 ± 16 years. When compared to pPP, cPP had stronger associations with PWV (r = 0.471 vs. r = 0.372; P < 0.01), C-IMT (r = 0.426 vs. r = 0.235; P < 0.01) and LVMI (r = 0.385 vs. r = 0.189; P < 0.01), but equal association with ACR (r = 0.236 vs. r = 0.226; P = n.s.). In contrast, after adjustment for age, mean arterial pressure, heart rate and hypertension status there was no significant difference between cPP and pPP for prediction of PWV (adjusted R, 0.399 vs. 0.413; P = 0.066), C-IMT (adjusted R, 0.399 vs. 0.413; P = 0.487) and LVMI (adjusted R, 0.181 vs. 0.170; P = 0.094) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In our middle-aged cohort with high prevalence of hypertension cPP is more closely correlated with cardiovascular phenotypes than pPP. When adjusted for relevant cofactors, however, cPP does not provide additional information beyond pPP.
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
