4.6 Article

Association of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers with Incident Parkinson Disease in Patients with Hypertension: A Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 135, 期 8, 页码 1001-1007

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.04.029

关键词

Angiotensin receptor blocker; Hypertension; National Health Insurance Research Dataset; Parkinson disease; Renin-angiotensin system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the use of ARBs reduced the risk of developing Parkinson's disease in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, suggesting that it may be an effective neuroprotective strategy.
BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which are commonly used antihypertensives, have been proposed to lower the risk of Parkinson disease by reducing oxidative stress based on animal and in vitro studies. Thus, this study aimed to test this association in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 107,207 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension between 2001 and 2013. The hazard ratios for Parkinson disease were calculated for ARB treatment compared with those who never used ARBs and among the 5 subgroups receiving different cumulative ARB dosages. RESULTS: We identified 527 (1.1%) Parkinson disease cases among patients with ARB treatment in a median observation period of 8.4 years compared to the 1,255 (2.2%) Parkinson disease cases among those without ARB treatment in a median observation period of 6.8 years. Overall, risk for developing Parkinson disease was statistically lower in the ARB-treated group with a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.63) than those without ARB. CONCLUSIONS: ARB treatment was associated with a statistically important reduction of Parkinson disease risk in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. Therefore, ARB may constitute an effective neuroprotective strategy to lower Parkinson disease risk in such patients. (C) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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