Umeå University's logo

Objective: The objective was to investigate 10-year mortality, causes of death and cardiovascular comorbidity in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) and to evaluate their mutual associations.

Methods: This prospective cohort study included 176 CSF-shunted iNPH patients, and 368 age- and sex-matched controls. At inclusion, participants were medically examined, had blood analyzed and answered a questionnaire. The vascular comorbidities investigated were smoking, diabetes, body mass index, blood pressure (BP), hyperlipidemia, kidney function, atrial fibrillation and, cerebro- and cardiovascular disease.

Results: Survival was observed for a mean period of 10.3 ± 0.84 years. Shunted iNPH patients had an increased risk of death compared to controls (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.5, 95% CI 1.86–3.36; p < 0.001). After 10 years, 50% (n = 88) of iNPH patients and 24% (n = 88) of the controls were dead (p < 0.001). The risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, falls and neurological diseases were higher in iNPH (p < 0.05). The most common cause of death in iNPH was cardiovascular diseases (14% vs 7% for controls). Seven out of nine iNPH dying from falls had subdural hematomas. Systolic BP (HR = 0.985 95% CI 0.972–0.997, p = 0.018), atrial fibrillation (HR = 2.652, 95% CI 1.506–4.872, p < 0.001) and creatinine (HR = 1.018, 95% CI 1.010–1.027, p < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality for iNPH.

Discussion: This long-term and population-matched cohort study indicates that in spite of CSF-shunt treatment, iNPH has shorter life expectancy. It may be important to treat iNPH in supplementary ways to reduce mortality. Both cardiovascular comorbidities and lethal falls are contributing to the excess mortality in iNPH and reducing these preventable risks should be an established part of the treatment plan.

In their commentary, Shantsila et al.[1] while discussing some relevant issues of the 2023 Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) [2], for example, the length of the text and the involvement of only a few primary care physicians, they largely focus on the discussion on beta-blockers. The authors conclude that ‘the 2023 ESH Guidelines still argue in favour of beta-blockers that their clinical inferiority was simply to lesser blood pressure (BP) reduction rather than class effect’. However, this is an oversimplification that does not reflect the numerous arguments and facts that support the overall rationale of the 2023 ESH Guidelines for the recommended use of beta-blockers in the management of hypertension [2]. Taken together with other similar comments [3], it appears that it has become fashionable to down-grade beta-blockers and to dismiss the points already put forward in the 2023 ESH guidelines [2] and in previous publications revisiting beta-blocker benefits in detail [4,5]. Against this background, we use this opportunity to emphasize on key aspects of the beta-blocker discussion in brief. For a more comprehensive review of the literature, we refer to a very recent publication by us regarding the role of beta-blocker in hypertension [6].

Hypertension, defined as persistently elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at least 90 mmHg (International Society of Hypertension guidelines), affects over 1.5 billion people worldwide. Hypertension is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (e.g. coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke) and death. An international panel of experts convened by the International Society of Hypertension College of Experts compiled lifestyle management recommendations as first-line strategy to prevent and control hypertension in adulthood. We also recommend that lifestyle changes be continued even when blood pressure-lowering medications are prescribed. Specific recommendations based on literature evidence are summarized with advice to start these measures early in life, including maintaining a healthy body weight, increased levels of different types of physical activity, healthy eating and drinking, avoidance and cessation of smoking and alcohol use, management of stress and sleep levels. We also discuss the relevance of specific approaches including consumption of sodium, potassium, sugar, fibre, coffee, tea, intermittent fasting as well as integrated strategies to implement these recommendations using, for example, behaviour change-related technologies and digital tools.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a devastating yet preventable condition that disproportionately affects low-middle-income countries and indigenous populations in some high-income countries. Various preventive interventions have been implemented across the globe, but evidence for the effectiveness of these measures in reducing the incidence or prevalence of acute rheumatic fever and RHD is scattered. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of preventive interventions and identify the strategies used to reduce the burden of RHD.

METHODS AND RESULTS: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant studies on RHD prevention interventions including interventions for primordial, primary, and secondary prevention. Effectiveness measures for the interventions were gathered when available. The findings indicate that school-based primary prevention services targeting the early detection and treatment of Group A Streptococcus pharyngitis infection with penicillin have the potential to reduce the incidence of Group A Streptococcus pharyngitis and acute rheumatic fever. Community-based programs using various prevention strategies also reduced the burden of RHD. However, there is limited evidence from low-middle-income countries and a lack of rigorous evaluations reporting the true impact of the interventions. Narrative synthesis was performed, and the methodological quality appraisal was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.

CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review underscores the importance of various preventive interventions in reducing the incidence and burden of Group A Streptococcus pharyngitis, acute rheumatic fever, and RHD. Rigorous evaluations and comprehensive analyses of interventions are necessary for guiding effective strategies and informing public health policies to prevent and reduce the burden of these diseases in diverse populations.

REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42020170503.

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension β-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

BACKGROUND: Coronary atherosclerosis detected by imaging is a marker of elevated cardiovascular risk. However, imaging involves large resources and exposure to radiation. The aim was, therefore, to test whether nonimaging data, specifically data that can be self-reported, could be used to identify individuals with moderate to severe coronary atherosclerosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the population-based SCAPIS (Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study) in individuals with coronary computed tomography angiography (n=25 182) and coronary artery calcification score (n=28 701), aged 50 to 64 years without previous ischemic heart disease. We developed a risk prediction tool using variables that could be assessed from home (self-report tool). For comparison, we also developed a tool using variables from laboratory tests, physical examinations, and self-report (clinical tool) and evaluated both models using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, external validation, and benchmarked against factors in the pooled cohort equation. The self-report tool (n=14 variables) and the clinical tool (n=23 variables) showed high-to-excellent discriminative ability to identify a segment involvement score ≥4 (area under the curve 0.79 and 0.80, respectively) and significantly better than the pooled cohort equation (area under the curve 0.76, P<0.001). The tools showed a larger net benefit in clinical decision-making at relevant threshold probabilities. The self-report tool identified 65% of all individuals with a segment involvement score ≥4 in the top 30% of the highest-risk individuals. Tools developed for coronary artery calcification score ≥100 performed similarly.

CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a self-report tool that effectively identifies individuals with moderate to severe coronary atherosclerosis. The self-report tool may serve as prescreening tool toward a cost-effective computed tomography-based screening program for high-risk individuals.