4.7 Article

Effect of antihypertensive medications on the risk of open-angle glaucoma

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-43420-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of antihypertensive medication on the risk of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in patients diagnosed with hypertension. The study found that certain antihypertensive medications slightly increased the risk of OAG, but the effects were small. Further research is needed to understand the associations between hypertension, medication, therapeutic effect, and OAG.
The purpose of this study was to identify the effect of antihypertensive medication on risks of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) among patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN). A total of 5,195 patients, who were diagnosed with HTN between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, and subsequently diagnosed with OAG, were selected for analysis. For each OAG patient, 5 non-glaucomatous, hypertensive controls were matched (n = 25,975) in hypertension diagnosis date, residential area, insurance type and economic status. Antihypertensive medications were stratified into 5 types: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), beta-blockers and diuretics. Relative risks were calculated. After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, lifestyle, comorbidities, blood pressure (BP), follow-up duration, and use of other types of antihypertensive drugs, ARB and CCB were found to slightly increase OAG risks (RR 1.1087 (95% CI 1.0293-1.1942); 1.0694 (1.0077-1.1349), respectively). Combinations of ARB with diuretics (1.0893 (1.0349-1.1466)) and CCB (1.0548 (1.0122-1.0991)) also increased OAG risks. The risks for OAG were found to increase by antihypertensive medication use, but the effects appeared to be small. Further studies are necessary to identify the associations of increased BP, medication and therapeutic effect with OAG.

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