blood pressure-lowering and risk of cancer: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis and mendelian randomisation studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The current body of randomised evidence concerning the effect of blood pressure lowering on the risk of cancer remains limited. Purpose We leveraged the strengths of both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and genomic information to examine this question. Methods Individual-level data from 314,016 participants from 42 RCTs were pooled to investigate the effect of blood pressure lowering on the risk of cancer through one-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident cancer, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted to assess heterogeneity in effect by follow-up time and baseline age groups, sex, body mass index categories, smoking status and previous use of antihypertensive drugs. Secondary outcomes were cause-specific cancer death and site-specific cancer risk comprising breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, prostate, and skin. Cox proportional hazard regression, stratified by trials, were used for statistical analyses. For site-specific cancers, analyses were complemented with Mendelian randomisation analyses using naturally randomised genetic variants associated with blood pressure lowering, retrieved from genome-wide association studies involving participants of European ancestry. Results Over a median of 4 years (interquartile range 2), 17,954 participants in RCTs were diagnosed with cancer of any type and 4,878 participants were reported to have died with cancer as the cause of death. In the IPD meta-analysis that compared the treatment arm with the comparator, no associations were identified between reductions in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure and the risk of incident cancer (hazard ratios [HRs] per 5 mmHg reduction in systolic and per 3 mmHg diastolic blood pressure were 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.06) and 1.03 [0.98-1.07], respectively). We also found no pattern of increasing or decreasing relative risk for incident cancer during the follow-up period, nor was there evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects across baseline subgroups. No effect on the risk of cause-specific cancer death was identified for either systolic or diastolic blood pressure lowering. Considering site-specific cancers, we also found no evidence of effect, except for a possible link with lung cancer risk, with HRs of 1.17 [99.5% CI 1.02-1.32] for systolic blood pressure and 1.17 [99.5% CI 0.98-1.36] for diastolic blood pressure lowering. In Mendelian randomisation studies, no association was observed for genetically determined systolic and diastolic blood pressure and all the considered site-specific cancers, including overall lung cancer and its subtypes. Conclusion We found no consistent randomised evidence to suggest that blood pressure-lowering has a substantial effect, whether increasing or decreasing, on incident cancer, cause-specific cancer death, or selected site-specific cancers.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,074 | 0,127 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,047 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».