4.7 Review

Antihypertensive Treatment in People With Dementia

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.03.005

关键词

Hypertension; dementia; antihypertensive drugs

资金

  1. MRC [MR/K00414X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. National Institute for Health Research [PB-PG-1112-29070] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PB-PG-1112-29070] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  4. Department of Health [PB-PG-1112-29070] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The range and magnitude of potential benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment in people with dementia has not been previously established. Methods: A scoping review to identify potential domains of benefits and harms of antihypertensive therapy in people with dementia was undertaken. Systematic reviews of these domains were undertaken to examine the magnitude of the benefits or harms. Results: Potential outcome domains identified in the 155 papers in the scoping review were cardiovascular events, falls, fractures and syncope, depression, orthostatic hypotension, behavioral disturbances, polypharmacy risks, kidney problems, sleep problems, interactions with cholinesterase inhibitors, and pain. The systematic reviews across these domains identified relatively few studies done in people with dementia, and no convincing evidence of safety, benefit, or harm across any of them. Discussion: Given the lack of firm evidence of benefits or harm from antihypertensive therapy in people with dementia and the weak evidence for benefits in people over 80 years of age, the current presumption that the favorable evidence drawn from the treatment of nondemented people should be extrapolated to those with dementia is contentious. There is sufficient evidence to warrant particular caution and further research into treatment in this group of patients. (C) 2014 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据