4.0 Article

C-reactive protein concentration and incident hypertension in young adults - The CARDIA study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 166, 期 3, 页码 345-349

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.3.345

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-48049, N01-HC-95095, N01-HC-48047, T32 HL076132-01, N01-HC-48048] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is increasing evidence that C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration, a measure of inflammation, is an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension in older adults. However, it is unknown whether a similar relationship exists in younger individuals. Methods: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study was initiated in 1985-1986 to determine the factors that are associated with coronary risk development in young adults. C-reactive protein concentrations were measured in 3919 African American and white men and women enrolled in CARDIA using blood specimens from the year 7 examination (1992-1993), when the age of the cohort was 25 to 37 years, and the year 15 examination (2000-2001). Results: In unadjusted analyses, CRP concentrations greater than 3 mg/L, compared with those less than 1 mg/L, was associated with a 79% greater risk of incident hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-2.28). However, CRP concentration did not predict risk of incident hypertension after adjusting for year 7 body mass index (BMI) (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53) or year 7 BMI and other potential confounders (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.83-1.52). In addition, year 7 CRP concentration was not associated with change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure after adjusting for BMI (P = .10 and P = .70, respectively). These findings were similar within each of the race- and sex-specific groups. Conclusion: C-reactive protein is associated with hypertension in young adults, but in contrast to the finding in older populations, the association is no longer present after adjusting for BMI.

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

4.0
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