| 1. |
- Morales Salinas, Alberto, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Perspective on Antihypertensive Drug Treatment in Adults With Grade 1 Hypertension and Low-to-Moderate Cardiovascular Risk : An International Expert Consultation
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Current problems in cardiology. - : Elsevier. - 0146-2806 .- 1535-6280. ; 42:7, s. 198-225
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hypertension is a leading risk factor for disease burden globally. An unresolved question is whether grade 1 hypertension (140-159/90-99 mm Hg) with low (cardiovascular mortality < 1% at 10 years) to moderate (cardiovascular mortality ≥ 1% and <5% at 10 years) absolute total cardiovascular risk (CVR) should be treated with antihypertensive agents. A virtual international consultation process was undertaken to summarize the opinions of select experts. After holistic analysis of all epidemiological, clinical, psychosocial, and public health elements, this consultation process reached the following consensus in hypertensive adults aged < 80 years: (1) The question of whether drug treatment in grade 1 should be preceded by a period of some weeks or months during which only lifestyle measures are recommended cannot be evidence based, but the consensus opinion is to have a period of lifestyle alone reserved only to patients with grade 1 "isolated" hypertension (grade 1 uncomplicated hypertension with low absolute total CVR, and without other major CVR factors and risk modifiers). (2) The initiation of antihypertensive drug therapy in grade 1 hypertension with moderate absolute total CVR should not be delayed. (3) Men ≥ 55 years and women ≥ 60 years with uncomplicated grade 1 hypertension should automatically be classified within the moderate absolute total CVR category, even in the absence of other major CVR factors and risk modifiers. (4) Statins should be considered along with blood-pressure lowering therapy, irrespective of cholesterol levels, in patients with grade 1 hypertensive with moderate CVR.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
