MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2588829128 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.762.762

The Hypertension of Hemophilia Is Associated with Vascular Joint Remodeling and Cannot be Explained By the Usual Cardiovascular Risk Factors

2015· article· en· W2588829128 sur OpenAlexaff
R. F. W. Barnes, Thomas J. Cramer, Afrah S. Sait, Rebecca Kruse‐Jarres, Doris Quon, Annette von Drygalski

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBlood pressureNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyCohortPopulationInternal medicineEtiologyCohort studyPrehypertensionEpidemiologyPediatricsEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Patients with hemophilia (PWH) have a higher prevalence of hypertension and intracranial hemorrhage than the general male population. However, the etiology of the hypertension, and to what extent blood pressure and associations with cardiovascular risk factors vary from the general population, is incompletely understood. We therefore investigated the prevalence of hypertension as well as the associations of blood pressure measurements with usual cardiovascular risk factors, in a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of 486 PWH. The PWH (median age 38 years) came from 3 geographically different areas in the United States. They were compared against males from the contemporary National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), matched for age and race in a 1:5 ratio. Subsequently, at the University of California San Diego, a pilot cohort of PWH (n=28; median age 37 years) was examined prospectively for hypertension and associations with hemophilia-specific risk factors pertaining to joint health. PWH had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension compared to subjects from NHANES. The prevalence of hypertension was 53.4% in PWH compared to 28.8 % in NHANES (p<0.01). In untreated (not taking anti-hypertensive medications) and treated subjects median systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were significantly higher in PWH than in NHANES. Differences in prevalence of hypertension and blood pressure measurements were most pronounced in the youngest age group (18-29 years). In untreated PWH median SBP and DBP were 125 and 78 mmHg (118 and 72 mmHg in NHANES), and in treated PWH 134 and 84 (127 and 76 mmHg in NAHES), respectively; all p-values <0.0001. However, despite higher blood pressures the usual cardiovascular risk profile was better in PWH compared to NHANES, in that body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol, smoking and diabetes were lower and renal function was better. While the usual cardiovascular risk factors were associated with blood pressure in both PWH and NHANES, they did not account for the differences between the two groups. Whether each risk factor was considered by itself, or in combination with the others in multivariate models, the blood pressure differences remained. Therefore, to elucidate to what extent hemophilia-specific factors might play a role in the pathophysiology of hypertension, we assessed hypertension and blood pressures in association with joint health parameters in a pilot cohort of young adult PWH. These patients underwent prospective baseline examination of 6 joints (both elbows, knees and ankles, n=168) for joint pain (Visual Analogue Scale 0-10), radiographic Pettersson score (maximum score 78), clinical Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS, maximum score 120), severity of hemophilia (severe vs mild/moderate), clotting factor usage, and joint vascular perfusion quantified with Power Doppler (PD, maximum score 54) and high resolution musculoskeletal ultrasound. We found that 54% were hypertensive, similar to the larger cohort. In univariate analysis, PD score was the risk factor most strongly associated with hypertension (p = 0.07). After adjustment for confounders, the odds for hypertension increased by 1.29 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.60; p = 0.02) for each unit increase in PD score. Moreover, there was a strong association of PD scores with SBP when adjusted for confounders. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that PWH not only have a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, but also significantly higher blood pressures compared to the general population, even when treated with anti-hypertensive medications. The difference in blood pressures could not be explained by the usual cardiovascular risk factors but appeared to be strongly associated with the degree of vascular changes in the joint. Based on previous findings that vascular remodeling is a prominent feature of hemophilic arthropathy and may be mediated systemically, we postulate that vascular remodeling is associated with the etiology of hypertension in hemophilia. These findings warrant further basic and clinical investigation. Disclosures Kruse-Jarres: Octapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Baxter: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quon:Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. von Drygalski:Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Baxalta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biogen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hematherix Inc: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,250
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemophilia Treatment and Research→Travaux en français237 207→