| 1. |
- Bager, Johan-Emil, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment of hypertension in old patients without previous cardiovascular disease.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of hypertension. - 1473-5598. ; 37:11, s. 2269-2279
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this study was to compare the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) - nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke - at blood pressure levels that meet current recommendations with risk at lower levels, particularly in older patients.We identified patients with hypertension aged 40-90 years from a primary care register. Patients with a history of cancer, diabetes mellitus or CVD were excluded. Patients were divided into age groups (40-75 and 76-90), and four groups of SBP 110-129, 130-139 (reference), 140-149 and ≥150 mmHg. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to study incidence of AMI, stroke and a composite of the two. Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios for outcomes.We included 31 704 patients: 26 663 were 40-75 years old and 5041 were 76-90 years old. Mean follow-up was 2 years. Although no significant differences in risk of any outcome were found in the younger group, low blood pressure was associated with the lowest risk in the older group. Older patients in the 110-129 mmHg group had a lower incidence of CVD (15.9/1000 vs. 25.3/1000 person-years) than the reference group. After adjustment for covariates, the hazard ratio of CVD in older patients in the 110-129 mmHg group compared with the reference group was 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.40-0.92).Blood pressure levels lower than those currently recommended are not harmful among older patients. The association between lower SBP and lesser risk of CVD may instead suggest a beneficial effect of lower SBP.
|
|
| 2. |
- Beijer, Kristina, et al.
(författare)
-
Interaction between physical activity and television time on blood pressure level : cross-sectional data from 45000 individuals
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 36:5, s. 1041-1050
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives:The aim was to investigate if there is an interaction between sitting time and leisure time physical activity on blood pressure and if there are age differences and sex differences in this respect.Methods:Linear regression analysis on cross-sectional data was performed in more than 45000 men and women from two Swedish cohort studies, EpiHealth (45-75 years) and LifeGene (18-45 years). Self-reported leisure time physical activity was given in five levels from low (level 1) to vigorous physical activity (level 5) and television time was used as a proxy measure of sitting time.Results:High physical activity was associated with lower DBP (P=0.001), but not SBP. Active middle-aged men had lower DBP (-1.1mmHg; 95% CI -1.7 to -0.4) compared with inactive participants. Prolonged television time was associated with higher SBP (P<0.001) and DBP (P=0.011) in both sexes and in most age groups. Watching 3h instead of 1h television per day was associated with higher SBP in middle-aged women (SBP: 1.1mmHg; 95% CI 0.7-1.4) and men (SBP: 1.2mmHg; 95% CI 0.8-1.6). Only in young men, a high physical activity (level 4 instead of level 1) could compensate for a prolonged television time (3h per day) in terms of DBP.Conclusion:Prolonged television time was associated with higher SBP and DBP in both sexes and at most ages, whereas an increased physical activity was mainly associated with a lower DBP. Only in young men, a high physical activity could compensate for prolonged television time regarding DBP.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bokrantz, Tove, et al.
(författare)
-
7b.10: Thiazide Diuretics and Fracture-Risk among Hypertensive Patients. Results from the Swedish Primary Care Cardiovascular Database (Spccd)
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of hypertension. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 33 Suppl 1, s. e94-5
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether treatment with thiazide diuretics reduces the risk of osteoporotic fractures in hypertensive patients in primary health care. Further we aimed to examine the impact of duration of thiazide use, the consequences of discontinuation of use and effect-modifications by gender. DESIGN AND METHOD: This retrospective cohort study includes 60 893 individuals, diagnosed with hypertension during 2001-2008 included in the Swedish Primary Care Cardiovascular Database. All patients were followed from a fixed baseline (1 Jan 2006, or the date the patient received their first diagnosis of hypertension if that date came later) until they had an incident osteoporotic fracture, died, or reached the end of the study at 31 Dec 2012, whichever came first. Patients exposed to thiazide diuretics (dispensed drugs recorded through the Prescribed Drug Register) were compared with hypertensive patients never exposed to thiazides. RESULTS: During follow up 2421 osteoporotic fractures occurred. Current use of thiazide diuretics was found to be associated with significantly reduced risk of osteoporotic fractures (adjusted hazard ratios 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.97) independent of blood pressure level. In addition, risk appeared to decline with longer duration of use. In contrast, discontinuation of dispensed prescriptions of thiazides was associated with increased risk of osteoporotic fractures (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.04-1.31).However, a trend towards attenuation of the increased risk with longer duration past treatment period was seen. When analyzing men and women separately similar results were seen, for both genders, although only statistically significant for men. CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective cohort study of hypertensive men and women from Sweden, we could identity a protective effect on osteoporotic fractures among current users of thiazide diuretic drugs independent of blood pressure level. However, the risk of fracture was found to be increased in patients shortly after discontinuation of treatment compared to patients never prescribed thiazide diuretic drugs. The reason for an augmented outcome on osteoporotic fractures among patients with former thiazide diuretic therapy needs to be further elucidated.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bokrantz, Tove, et al.
(författare)
-
Reply.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of hypertension. - 1473-5598. ; 35:3, s. 646-647
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Borghi, Claudio, et al.
(författare)
-
The association between blood pressure and lipid levels in Europe : European study on cardiovascular risk prevention and management in usual daily practice
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 34:11, s. 2155-2163
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives:Several studies have suggested a positive association between serum lipid levels and blood pressure (BP). This study investigated this association in a large population from 12 European countries.Methods:Data were taken from the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Usual Daily Practice (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00882336). Associations between BP and lipid levels in patients free from cardiovascular disease and with at least one major cardiovascular disease risk factor (N=7641) were assessed using linear regression analyses.Results:Overall, 72.8 and 64.8% of patients had hypertension and dyslipidaemia, respectively; 47.0% had both conditions. Regression coefficients (95% confidence interval) for the associations of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and apolipoprotein B levels with SBP, adjusted for age, sex and BMI, were 0.93mmHg/mmol per l (0.54-1.31), 1.07mmHg/mmol per l (0.73-1.40), 1.02mmHg/mmol per l (0.69-1.35) and 4.94mmHg/g per l (3.43-6.46), respectively. The corresponding values (95% confidence interval) for the associations with DBP were 0.96mmHg/mmol per l (0.73-1.19), 0.95mmHg/mmol per l (0.75-1.15), 0.87mmHg/mmol per l (0.67-1.07) and 4.33mmHg/g per l (3.42-5.23), respectively. Most of these associations remained significant whether patients were treated with statins or not.Conclusion:Small but statistically significant associations between lipid levels and BP were observed in a large, multinational European population. Further research is warranted to assess the causality of this association and its implications on the management of patients with both hypertension and dyslipidaemia.
|
|
| 7. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
Blood pressure treatment levels and choice of antihypertensive agent in people with diabetes mellitus : an overview of systematic reviews
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 35, s. 435-462
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Multiple systematic reviews address the effect of antihypertensive treatment in people with diabetes. Here, we summarize current systematic reviews concerning antihypertensive treatment effect at different blood pressure (BP) levels, and relative treatment effect of different antihypertensive agents.METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, DARE and CDSR during years 2005-2016. Eligibility criteria, number of trials and participants, outcomes analysed, statistical methods used for data synthesis, and principal results were extracted for each review. Review quality was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool.RESULTS: We found four reviews concerning BP treatment level. These consistently showed that the effect of antihypertensive treatment on mortality, cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease was attenuated at lower BP levels. If SBP was more than 140 mmHg, treatment reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease, stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. If SBP was less than 140 mmHg, treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular death. We found eight reviews concerning choice of agent. We found no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers and diuretics in preventing all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, combined cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Minor differences exist for stroke and heart failure. Data were limited on people with type 1 diabetes and very elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. None of the reviews concerning choice of agent included all relevant trials.CONCLUSION: The available evidence supports treatment in people with type 2 diabetes and SBP more than 140 mmHg, using any of the major antihypertensive drug classes.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
SPRINT in context : meta-analysis of trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 36:5, s. 979-986
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To estimate the effect of antihypertensive treatment in trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease. To test if the results from SPRINT are compatible with those from other trials, and test the impact of SPRINT results on overall effect estimates. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing antihypertensive treatment versus placebo, or different blood pressure goals against each other. Trials with at least 50% previous cardiovascular disease were excluded. Results: Sixteen trials, including 66816 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Mean baseline SBP was 138mmHg, and mean difference between treatment arms was 5.5mmHg. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality [relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.05] and major cardiovascular events (0.97, 0.91-1.03). Results from SPRINT differed significantly from those of other trials (P=0.012 for all-cause mortality; P=0.016 for major cardiovascular events), but overall effect estimates were similar when SPRINT was excluded (1.01, 0.95-1.06 for all-cause mortality; 0.98, 0.93-1.03 for major cardiovascular events). Treatment was associated with reduced risk of secondary outcomes stroke (0.84, 0.71-1.00) and heart failure (0.88, 0.78-0.98), although heterogeneity was high in the stroke analysis (I-2=54%). Conclusion: SPRINT results are not representative for trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive treatment does not protect against death or major cardiovascular events in this setting.
|
|
| 10. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
Standardization according to blood pressure lowering in meta-analyses of antihypertensive trials : comparison of three methodological approaches
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 36:1, s. 4-15
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Assess how standardization of relative risks (RRs) and standard errors (SEs), according to blood pressure differences within trials, affects heterogeneity, overall effect estimates and study weights in meta-analyses of antihypertensive treatment.METHOD: Data from a previous systematic review were used. Three sets of analyses were performed, using both random-effects and fixed-effects model for meta-analyses. First, we used raw data from the included trials. Second, we standardized RRs as if SBP was reduced by 10 mmHg in all trials. Third, we standardized both RRs and SEs.RESULTS: When RRs were standardized according to blood pressure lowering, heterogeneity between trials increased (I = 36 vs. 93% for mortality). This conferred large differences in treatment effect estimates using random-effects and fixed-effects model (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.89, respectively, 0.97, 0.94-0.99). When SEs were standardized, confidence intervals for individual trials widened, resulting in lower power to detect heterogeneity across trials. Study weights were dissociated from number of events in trials (P < 0.0001, R = 0.99 before standardization vs. P = 0.063, R = 0.05 after standardization). This induced a secondary shift in weight from trials with lower baseline SBP to trials with higher baseline SBP, resulting in exaggerated overall effect estimates.CONCLUSION: Standardization of RRs exaggerates differences between trials and makes meta-analyses highly sensitive to choice of statistical method. Standardization of SEs masks heterogeneity and results in biased effect estimates.
|
|
