Bernard M.Y. Cheung

Detection of hypertension and blood pressure control are critically important for reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. We analyzed the trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States in the period 1999-2004. We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004 database. Blood pressure information on 14 653 individuals (4749 in 1999-2000, 5032 in 2001-2002, and 4872 in 2003-2004) aged >or=18 years was used. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure >or=140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medications. The prevalence of hypertension in 2003-2004 was 7.3+/-0.9%, 32.6+/-2.0%, and 66.3+/-1.8% in the 18 to 39, 40 to 59, and >or=60 age groups, respectively. The overall prevalence was 29.3%. When compared with 1999-2000, there were nonsignificant increases in the overall prevalence, awareness, and treatment rates of hypertension. The blood pressure control rate was 29.2+/-2.3% in 1999-2000 and 36.8+/-2.3% in 2003-2004. The age-adjusted increase in control rate was 8.1% (95% CI: 2.4 to 13.8%; P=0.006). The control rates increased significantly in both sexes, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans. Among the >or=60 age group, the awareness, treatment, and control rates of hypertension had all increased significantly (P<or=0.01). The improvement in blood pressure control is encouraging, although the prevalence of hypertension has not declined.

Diabetes and hypertension frequently occur together. There is substantial overlap between diabetes and hypertension in etiology and disease mechanisms. Obesity, inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance are thought to be the common pathways. Recent advances in the understanding of these pathways have provided new insights and perspectives. Physical activity plays an important protective role in the two diseases. Knowing the common causes and disease mechanisms allows a more effective and proactive approach in their prevention and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Adipocyte-fatty acid binding protein (A-FABP), a major cytoplasmic protein in adipocytes, plays a central role in the development of diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in experimental animals. We have previously shown that A-FABP is present in the bloodstream and that its circulating levels correlate with metabolic risk factors in a cross-sectional study. In the present study, we further evaluated the prospective association of A-FABP with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) as defined by the updated National Cholesterol Education Program criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the present study, 495 nondiabetic adults from the population-based Hong Kong Cardiovascular Risk Factor Prevalence Study were prospectively followed up for 5 years. The relationship of serum A-FABP with the MetS and its components was investigated. At baseline, high A-FABP levels were associated with the MetS (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.5 to 10.4; highest versus lowest sex-specific tertile, adjusted for age, body mass index, the homeostasis model assessment index for insulin resistance, C-reactive protein, and adiponectin, P=0.005). On long-term follow-up, subjects with higher baseline A-FABP levels had progressively worse cardiometabolic risk profile and increasing risk of the MetS. Among 376 subjects without the MetS at baseline, 50 had developed it at 5 years. Apart from the homeostasis model assessment index for insulin resistance (P=0.001), baseline A-FABP was the only independent predictor of the development of the MetS during the 5-year follow-up (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8 to 11.9; highest versus lowest sex-specific tertile, P=0.001, adjusted for the homeostasis model assessment index for insulin resistance and body mass index). A-FABP was predictive of the MetS even after adjustment for each of its individual components. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating A-FABP predicts the development of the MetS independently of adiposity and insulin resistance.

AIMS: Since 2002, there have been five major outcome trials of statins reporting findings from more than 47,000 subjects. As individual trial results differed, we performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the effectiveness and safety of statins overall and in subgroups. The aim of the study was to estimate the effect of statins on major coronary events and strokes, all-cause mortality and noncardiovascular mortality, and in different subgroups. METHODS: PubMed was searched for trials published in English. Randomized placebo-controlled statin trials with an average follow up of at least 3 years and at least 100 major coronary events were included. For each trial, the statin used, number and type of subjects, proportion of women, mean age and follow up, baseline and change in lipid profile, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Ten trials involving 79,494 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. Due to heterogeneity, ALLHAT-LLT was excluded from some analyses. Statin therapy reduced major coronary events by 27% (95%CI 23, 30%), stroke by 18% (95%CI 10, 25%) and all-cause mortality by 15% (95%CI 8, 21%). There was a 4% (95%CI -10, 3%) nonsignificant reduction in noncardiovascular mortality. The reduction in major coronary events is independent of gender and presence of hypertension or diabetes. The risk reduction was greater in smokers (P < 0.05). Coronary events were reduced by 23% (95%CI 18, 29%) in pravastatin trials and 29% (95%CI 25, 33%) in five trials using other statins. Pravastatin reduced strokes by 12% (95%CI 1, 21%) whilst other statins reduced strokes by 24% (95%CI 16, 32%) (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Statins reduce coronary events, strokes and all-cause mortality without increasing noncoronary mortality. The benefits accrue in men and women, hypertensives and normotensives, diabetics and nondiabetics, and particularly in smokers. Pravastatin appears to have less impact on strokes.