Hypertension is an important public-health challenge worldwide. Prevention, detection, treatment, and control of this condition should receive high priority.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Health planners and policy makers are increasingly asking for a feasible method to identify vulnerable persons with the greatest health needs. We conducted a systematic review of the association between a single item assessing general self‐rated health (GSRH) and mortality. Data Sources: Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE database searches for studies published from January 1966 to September 2003. Review Methods: Two investigators independently searched English language prospective, community‐based cohort studies that reported (1) all‐cause mortality, (2) a question assessing GSRH; and (3) an adjusted relative risk or equivalent. The investigators searched the citations to determine inclusion eligibility and abstracted data by following a standarized protocol. Of the 163 relevant studies identified, 22 cohorts met the inclusion criteria. Using a random effects model, compared with persons reporting “excellent” health status, the relative risk (95% confidence interval) for all‐cause mortality was 1.23 [1.09, 1.39], 1.44 [1.21, 1.71], and 1.92 [1.64, 2.25] for those reporting “good,”“fair,” and “poor” health status, respectively. This relationship was robust in sensitivity analyses, limited to studies that adjusted for co‐morbid illness, functional status, cognitive status, and depression, and across subgroups defined by gender and country of origin. Conclusions: Persons with “poor” self‐rated health had a 2‐fold higher mortality risk compared with persons with “excellent” self‐rated health. Subjects' responses to a simple, single‐item GSRH question maintained a strong association with mortality even after adjustment for key covariates such as functional status, depression, and co‐morbidity.

IMPORTANCE Despite concern about an “epidemic,” there are limited data on trends in prevalence of either type 1 or type 2 diabetes across US race and ethnic groups. OBJECTIVE To estimate changes in the prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in US youth, by sex, age, and race/ethnicity between 2001 and 2009. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Case patients were ascertained in 4 geographic areas and 1 managed health care plan. The study population was determined by the 2001 and 2009 bridged-race intercensal population estimates for geographic sites and membership counts for the health plan. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prevalence (per 1000) of physician-diagnosed type 1 diabetes in youth aged 0 through 19 years and type 2 diabetes in youth aged 10 through 19 years. RESULTS In 2001, 4958 of 3.3 million youth were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for a prevalence of 1.48 per 1000 (95% CI, 1.44–1.52). In 2009, 6666 of 3.4 million youth were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for a prevalence of 1.93 per 1000 (95% CI, 1.88–1.97). In 2009, the highest prevalence of type 1 diabetes was 2.55 per 1000 among white youth (95% CI, 2.48–2.62) and the lowest was 0.35 per 1000 in American Indian youth (95% CI, 0.26–0.47) and type 1 diabetes increased between 2001 and 2009 in all sex, age, and race/ethnic subgroups except for those with the lowest prevalence (age 0–4 years and American Indians). Adjusted for completeness of ascertainment, there was a 21.1% (95% CI, 15.6%–27.0%) increase in type 1 diabetes over 8 years. In 2001, 588 of 1.7 million youth were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for a prevalence of 0.34 per 1000 (95% CI, 0.31–0.37). In 2009, 819 of 1.8 million were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for a prevalence of 0.46 per 1000 (95% CI, 0.43–0.49). In 2009, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was 1.20 per 1000 among American Indian youth (95% CI, 0.96–1.51); 1.06 per 1000 among black youth (95% CI, 0.93–1.22); 0.79 per 1000 among Hispanic youth (95% CI, 0.70–0.88); and 0.17 per 1000 among white youth (95% CI, 0.15–0.20). Significant increases occurred between 2001 and 2009 in both sexes, all age-groups, and in white, Hispanic, and black youth, with no significant changes for Asian Pacific Islanders and American Indians. Adjusted for completeness of ascertainment, there was a 30.5% (95% CI, 17.3%–45.1%) overall increase in type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Between 2001 and 2009 in 5 areas of the United States, the prevalence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents increased. Further studies are required to determine the causes of these increases.

Background Hypertension is the leading preventable cause of premature death worldwide. We examined global disparities of hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in 2010 and compared secular changes from 2000 to 2010. Methods We searched MEDLINE from 1995 through 2014 and supplemented with manual searches of retrieved article references. We included 135 population-based studies of 968,419 adults from 90 countries. Sex-age-specific hypertension prevalences from each country were applied to population data to calculate regional and global numbers of hypertensive adults. Proportions of awareness, treatment, and control from each country were applied to hypertensive populations to obtain regional and global estimates. Results In 2010, 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 30.0-32.2%) of the world's adults had hypertension; 28.5% (27.3-29.7%) in high-income countries and 31.5% (30.2-32.9%) in low- and middle-income countries. An estimated 1.39 (1.34-1.44) billion people had hypertension in 2010; 349 (337-361) million in high-income and 1.04 (0.99-1.09) billion in low- and middle-income countries. From 2000 to 2010, the age-standardized prevalence of hypertension decreased by 2.6% in high-income countries but increased by 7.7% in low- and middle-income countries. During the same period, the proportions of awareness (58.2% vs 67.0%), treatment (44.5% vs 55.6%), and control (17.9% vs. 28.4%) increased substantially in high-income countries, whereas awareness (32.3% vs 37.9%) and treatment (24.9% vs 29.0%) increased less, and control (8.4% vs 7.7%) even slightly decreased in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusions Global hypertension disparities are large and increasing. Collaborative efforts are urgently needed to combat the emerging hypertension burden in low- and middle-income countries.

Hypertension is an important public health challenge in both economically developing and developed countries. Significant numbers of individuals with hypertension are unaware of their condition and, among those with diagnosed hypertension, treatment is frequently inadequate. Measures are required at a population level to prevent the development of hypertension and to improve awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in the community.

Background:The prevalence and correlates of obese individuals who are resistant to the development of the adiposity-associated cardiometabolic abnormalities and normal-weight individuals who display cardiometabolic risk factor clustering are not well known.