4.6 Article

Trends in Hypertension Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment and Control in an Adult Type 2 Diabetes Spanish Population between 2003 and 2009

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086713

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the prevalence of hypertension is higher than in non-diabetic subjects. Despite the high cardiovascular risk involving hypertension in these patients, its prevalence and control are not well known. The aims of this study were: to estimate the hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in Spanish adults with type 2 diabetes attended in Primary Care; and to analyse its time trend from 2003 to 2009. A serial cross-sectional study from 2003 to 2009 was performed in 21 Primary Care Centres in Madrid. The study population comprised all patients with diagnosed type 2 diabetes in their computerised medical history. Overall annual prevalence during the period 2003-2009 was calculated from and according to sex and age groups. Linear trend tests, regression lines and coefficients of determination were used. In 2003 89.78% (CI 87.92-91.64) of patients with type 2 diabetes suffered hypertension and 94.76% (CI: 92.85-96.67) in 2009. This percentage was greater for women and for patients over 65 years old. 30% of patients suffered previously undiagnosed hypertension in 2003 and 23.1% in 2009. 97% of diagnosed patients received pharmacological treatment and 28.79% reached the blood pressure objective in 2009. The average number of antihypertensive drugs taken was 2.72 in 2003 and 3.27 in 2009. Only 5.2% of patients with type 2 diabetes show blood pressure levels below 130/80 mmHg. Although significant improvements have been achieved in the diagnosis and control of hypertension in people with type 2 diabetes, these continue to remain far from optimum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available