Hypertension May Be Inflammatory Disease



M

Matti Narkia

Guest
A new study published in JAMA in December 10 suggests that hypertension may be an inflammatory
disease. The study found that CRP was significantly associated with an increased (52% higher) risk
of developing hypertension. The study is

Sesso HD, Buring JE, Rifai N, Blake GJ, Gaziano JM, Ridker PM. C-reactive protein and the risk of
developing hypertension. JAMA. 2003 Dec 10;290(22):2945-51. PMID: 14665655 [PubMed - indexed for
MEDLINE] <URL:http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/22/2945> <URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.n-
ih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14665655&dopt=Abstract>

Abstract:

"CONTEXT: Although it has been hypothesized that hypertension is in part an inflammatory
disorder, clinical data linking inflammation with incident hypertension are scarce. OBJECTIVE:
To examine whether C-reactive protein levels, a marker of systemic inflammation, are
associated with incident hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort
study that began in 1992 of 20 525 female US health professionals aged 45 years or older who
provided baseline blood samples with initially normal levels of blood pressure (BP) (systolic
BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg, and no history of hypertension or antihypertensive
medications) and then followed up for a median of 7.8 years for the development of incident
hypertension. Plasma C-reactive protein levels were measured and baseline coronary risk
factors were collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incident hypertension, defined as either a new
physician diagnosis, the initiation of antihypertensive treatment, or self-reported systolic
BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg. RESULTS: During follow-up,
5365 women developed incident hypertension. In crude models, the relative risks (RRs) and 95%
confidence intervals (CIs) of developing hypertension from the lowest (referent) to the
highest levels of baseline C-reactive protein were 1.00, 1.25 (95% CI, 1.14-1.40), 1.51 (95%
CI, 1.35-1.68), 1.90 (95% CI,
1.72-2.11), and 2.50 (95% CI, 2.27-2.75) (linear trend P<.001). In fully adjusted models for
coronary risk factors, the RRs and 95% CIs were 1.00, 1.07 (95% CI, .95-1.20), 1.17 (95% CI,
1.04-1.31), 1.30 (95% CI,
2.17-1.45), and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.36-1.69) (linear trend P<.001). C-reactive protein was
significantly associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension in all prespecified
subgroups evaluated, including those with very low levels of baseline BP, as well as those
with no traditional coronary risk factors. Similar results were found when treating C-reactive
protein as a continuous variable and controlling for baseline BP. CONCLUSION: C- reactive
protein levels are associated with future development of hypertension, which suggests that
hypertension is in part an inflammatory disorder."

Comments in

Higher C-Reactive Protein Levels Appear Associated with Increased Risk of Incident Hypertension <UR-
L:http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/C01D64482295515185256DF9004D5270?OpenDocument&c=Hyp-
ertension&count=10> ( http://tinyurl.com/2gtej )

"Levels of C-reactive protein appear to be associated with an increased risk of hypertension
that is independent of baseline blood pressure levels and coronary risk factors, according to
findings from the Women's Health Study.

"These data suggest that inflammation may have a potentially important role in the development
of hypertension," reports Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston,
Massachusetts, United States, and colleagues. The researchers analysed baseline blood pressure
and coronary risk factors as well as baseline C-reactive protein levels compared with these
levels over a median of 7.8 years of follow up in 20,525 female healthcare professionals, 45
years or older. The cohort had baseline blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm
Hg diastolic and had no history of hypertension or the use of antihypertensive treatment.

[...]

When fully adjusting for coronary risk factors, the relative risk of incident hypertension
ranged from 1.07 for C-reactive protein levels of 0.44 to 0.89 mg/L to 1.52 for C-reactive
protein levels over 3.5 mg/L, compared with women with C-reactive protein levels below 0.43
mg/L. Increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with increased risk of incident
hypertension in all subgroup evaluations."

and

Hypertension May Be Inflammatory Disease-Study Wed 10 December, 2003 17:13
<URL:http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3971292&section=news>

"... The researchers monitored 20,525 women aged 45 or older for high blood pressure over eight
years. Those who had high levels of the protein at the start had a 52 percent higher risk of
developing hypertension, the study found.

"This significant increase in risk was present even among those with very low levels of blood
pressure when they entered the study, and was also seen among healthier women without many
traditional coronary risk factors," Sesso said.

The article said that researchers already have found that inflammation plays a crucial role in
the development of heart disease and that inflammation can be measured easily with a simple and
inexpensive blood test for the telltale protein.

"We already know that (the protein) is a stronger predictor of heart attack risk than
cholesterol," said Paul Ridker, another author.

"The current data linking (it) to the development of high blood pressure tells us that
inflammation may play a major role in the development of vascular disease throughout the body.
If we can predict and prevent the onset of high blood pressure, then we will be well on our way
toward the prevention of stroke," he said."

The next step, Ridker added, was "to find out whether therapies targeting inflammation itself
can be used to reduce the risk of these devastating events."

--
Matti Narkia
 
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or is this mechanism a "positive feedback cycle"?

--
Patrick Blanchard, M.D. Board Certified in Family Medicine

SonoScore Winning against heart attack and stroke http://www.sonoscore.com
 
"Patrick Blanchard M.D." <pbmd@<nospamwamego>.net> wrote in part:

>Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or is this mechanism a "positive feedback cycle"?

The study was a prospective cohort design that found that inflammation predicted later development
of hypertension. That doesn't rule out a positive feedback loop, but it does suggest that
inflammation is the initiator of hypertension rather than the other way around. Of course, causality
is not established in any case by the study.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
 
Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
> "Patrick Blanchard M.D." <pbmd@<nospamwamego>.net> wrote in part:
>
> >Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or is this mechanism a "positive feedback cycle"?
>
> The study was a prospective cohort design that found that inflammation predicted later development
> of hypertension. That doesn't rule out a positive feedback loop, but it does suggest that
> inflammation is the initiator of hypertension rather than the other way around. Of course,
> causality is not established in any case by the study.

Correct. The association could still be spurious. Meanwhile, losing weight has been shown to lower
hsCRP and lower blood pressure in hypertensive folks.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http:/www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:28:30 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>>
>> "Patrick Blanchard M.D." <pbmd@<nospamwamego>.net> wrote in part:
>>
>> >Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or is this mechanism a "positive feedback cycle"?
>>
>> The study was a prospective cohort design that found that inflammation predicted later
>> development of hypertension. That doesn't rule out a positive feedback loop, but it does suggest
>> that inflammation is the initiator of hypertension rather than the other way around. Of course,
>> causality is not established in any case by the study.
>
>Correct. The association could still be spurious. Meanwhile, losing weight has been shown to lower
>hsCRP and lower blood pressure in hypertensive folks.

Thanks for posting the weight loss suggestion, a good idea, without also posting your diet
spam. Matt
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:28:30 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Jim Chinnis wrote:
> >>
> >> "Patrick Blanchard M.D." <pbmd@<nospamwamego>.net> wrote in part:
> >>
> >> >Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or is this mechanism a "positive feedback cycle"?
> >>
> >> The study was a prospective cohort design that found that inflammation predicted later
> >> development of hypertension. That doesn't rule out a positive feedback loop, but it does
> >> suggest that inflammation is the initiator of hypertension rather than the other way around. Of
> >> course, causality is not established in any case by the study.
> >
> >Correct. The association could still be spurious. Meanwhile, losing weight has been shown to
> >lower hsCRP and lower blood pressure in hypertensive folks.
>
> Thanks for posting the weight loss suggestion, a good idea, without also posting your diet spam.

Do you mean http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp ?

If so, you are welcome :)

> Matt

You poor guy.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior in 2004.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor Mattb.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http:/www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:

>>Thanks for posting the weight loss suggestion, a good idea, without also posting your diet spam.
>
> Do you mean http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp ?

Good for Chung. He finally acknowledges that he spams with that URL.

I bet he feels better having uncharacteristically (and perhaps unwittingly) told the truth.

Pastorio
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>Thanks for posting the weight loss suggestion, a good idea, without also posting your diet spam.
> >
> > Do you mean http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp ?
>
> Good for Chung. He finally acknowledges that he spams with that URL.

Seems that you have forgotten what a question mark means.

> I bet he feels better having uncharacteristically (and perhaps unwittingly) told the truth.

In truth I feel sad for you.

> Pastorio

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>Thanks for posting the weight loss suggestion, a good idea, without also posting your diet spam.
>>>
>>>Do you mean http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp ?
>>
>>Good for Chung. He finally acknowledges that he spams with that URL.
>
> Seems that you have forgotten what a question mark means.

So let's see how this unfolds. Matt mentions Chung's diet spamming. Chung asks if Matt means Chung's
2PoundPOWDiet?

Since Chung has no other diet information, it can only be the one thing. Chung acknowledges the
one thing.

Seems Chung has forgotten what "logic" means. Oh, wait. It's Chung...

No logic in evidence.

>>I bet he feels better having uncharacteristically (and perhaps unwittingly) told the truth.
>
> In truth I feel sad for you.

Those that don't understand are often lacking in comprehension.

Um, truth is true when it isn't false.

Er, Sadness is what happens at the end of the movie.

(Not as punchy as Chung's meaningless sentences. Gotta work on that. The "Chungism" problem is:
short statement, accusatory by implication, smug, supercilious, lofty, utterly devoid of meaning.)

Pastorio
 
Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Thanks for posting the weight loss suggestion, a good idea, without also posting your diet
> >>>>spam.
> >>>
> >>>Do you mean http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp ?
> >>
> >>Good for Chung. He finally acknowledges that he spams with that URL.
> >
> > Seems that you have forgotten what a question mark means.
>
> So let's see how this unfolds. Matt mentions Chung's diet spamming. Chung asks if Matt means
> Chung's 2PoundPOWDiet?
>

You are confusing the 2PD with the POW (2 ounce diet).

>
> Since Chung has no other diet information, it can only be the one thing.

Actually you can also find out about the POW diet from my website too.

> Chung acknowledges the one thing.
>

Seems you have also forgotten how to count. There's one (the 2PD approach) and then there's two (the
2PD approach and the POW diet approach).

You poor guy.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior in 2004. We'll know when you do because you'll be able
to publically declare it.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor. Only God can cure your seemingly progressive dementia.

Humble servant of the almighty Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Bob Pastorio wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Since Chung has no other diet information, it can only be the one thing.
>
> Actually you can also find out about the POW diet from my website too.

LOL! Well, he's got you there Bob :) Slippery weasel, isn't he :)

Reminds me of Clinton's

"That depends on what you mean by the word 'is'...".

Only Chung could recommend the 2 Ounce POW Diet.

Imagine a sad little anorexic clown.... :) Imagine the clown chasing the Fat Lady around the Circus
Ring shouting "2PD, 2PD, 2PD, 2PD!"

And you know what the problem is? It will never be over until the Fat Lady sings :)

--

Steve
 
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Since Chung has no other diet information, it can only be the one thing.
>
>Actually you can also find out about the POW diet from my website too.

You forgot the TwoMoon diet. It looks like the easiest of all, and the author claims it works well.
Why are you ignoring such a superior diet?

>Seems you have also forgotten how to count. There's one (the 2PD approach) and then there's two
>(the 2PD approach and the POW diet approach).

Ahhh... I understand. If you put up another diet, ther would be three things there, and three is
certainly gluttony. You said yourself that more than two is gluttony. Matt
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Only God can cure your seemingly progressive dementia.

Any questions remaining about Chung's out and out quackery? Pretending to medical knowledge he
doesn't have. "Seemingly" doesn't absolve him of responsibility, like "alleged" doesn't absolve
people of responsibility. A reckless quack. Questions?

Didn't think so.

Diagnosis for self-serving reasons from a quack.

Sad.

Pastorio
 
There is no doubt that essential hypertension results from inflammation. But it is also true that
essential hypertension is not primarily a cardiovascular disease. The inflammation is caused by the
rupture of the exocrine ducts of the skin, so that sweat exudate under pressure destroys skin blood
capillaries.

You will see that I modestly claim to have discovered both the aetiology of essential hypertension,
and an effective treatment.

The full article is at http://www.innatehealth.com/hypertension.htm

Best wishes,

Warren Ward

Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> A new study published in JAMA in December 10 suggests that hypertension may be an inflammatory
> disease. The study found that CRP was significantly associated with an increased (52% higher) risk
> of developing hypertension.
snip