CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 216Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Usual Blood Pressure and Risk of New-Onset Diabetes

Open access
Emdin, Connor A., Anderson, Simon G., Woodward, Mark, Rahimi, Kazem·2015·Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.059PMC PMC4595710
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reliable quantification of the association between blood pressure (BP) and risk of type 2 diabetes is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the association between usual BP and risk of diabetes, overall and by participant characteristics. METHODS: A cohort of 4.1 million adults, free of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, was identified using validated linked electronic health records. Analyses were complemented by a meta-analysis of prospective studies that reported relative risks of new-onset diabetes per unit of systolic blood pressure (SBP). RESULTS: Among the overall cohort, 20 mm Hg higher SBP and 10 mm Hg higher diastolic BP were associated with a 58% and a 52% higher risk of new-onset diabetes (hazard ratio: 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.56 to 1.59; and hazard ratio: 1.52; 95% confidence interval: 1.51 to 1.54), respectively. There was no evidence of a nadir to a baseline BP of 110/70 mm Hg. The strength of the association per 20 mm Hg higher SBP declined with age and with increasing body mass index. Estimates were similar even after excluding individuals prescribed antihypertensive or lipid-lowering therapies. Systematic review identified 30 studies with 285,664 participants and 17,388 incident diabetes events. The pooled relative risk of diabetes for a 20 mm Hg higher usual SBP across these studies was 1.77 (1.53 to 2.05). CONCLUSIONS: People with elevated BP are at increased risk of diabetes. The strength of the association declined with increasing body mass index and age. Further research should determine if the observed risk is modifiable.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.059

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a meta-analysis of 30 previously published prospective studies, for an increase of 20 mmHg in systolic blood pressure, the relative risk of diabetes mellitus was 1.77 (95% CI 1.53-2.05).

    “The pooled results indicated that, for an increase of 20 mmHg in systolic blood pressure, the relative risk of diabetes mellitus was 1.77 (95% CI 1.53-2.05).”

    From Type 2 diabetes mellitus and psychological stress — a modifiable risk factor (2017) · cites this paper as [47]

  • In a cohort of 4.1 million adults who did not have diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular disease at baseline, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found to have a dose-response relationship with the risk of developing diabetes mellitus, independent of a range of covariates.

    “In this cohort of 4.1 million adults who did not have diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular disease at baseline, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found to have a dose-response relationship with the risk of developing diabetes mellitus, independent of a range of covariates.”

    From Type 2 diabetes mellitus and psychological stress — a modifiable risk factor (2017) · cites this paper as [47]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1]Whiting D.R. Guariguata L. Weil C. Shaw J. IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030 Diabetes Res Clin Pract 94 2011 311 321 22079683
  2. [3]Taylor K.S. Heneghan C.J. Farmer A.J. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged people with type 2 diabetes compared with people without diabetes in a large U.K. primary care database Diabetes Care 36 2013 2366 2371 23435157 PMC3714501
  3. [4]Lewington S. Clarke R. Qizilbash N. Peto R. Collins R. Prospective Studies Collaboration Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies Lancet 360 2002 1903 1913 12493255
  4. [5]Chamarthi B. Williams G.H. Ricchiuti V. Inflammation and hypertension: the interplay of interleukin-6, dietary sodium, and the renin-angiotensin system in humans Am J Hypertens 24 2011 1143 1148 21716327 PMC3807212
  5. [6]Taddei S. Virdis A. Ghiadoni L. Sudano I. Salvetti A. Antihypertensive drugs and reversing of endothelial dysfunction in hypertension Curr Hypertens Rep 2 2000 64 70 10981130
  6. [9]Conen D. Ridker P.M. Mora S. Buring J.E. Glynn R.J. Blood pressure and risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Women's Health Study Eur Heart J 28 2007 2937 2943 17925342
  7. [10]Herrett E. Shah A.D. Boggon R. Completeness and diagnostic validity of recording acute myocardial infarction events in primary care, hospital care, disease registry, and national mortality records: cohort study BMJ 346 2013 f2350 23692896 PMC3898411
  8. [11]Herrett E. Thomas S.L. Schoonen W.M. Smeeth L. Hall A.J. Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review Br J Clin Pharmacol 69 2010 4 14 20078607 PMC2805870
  9. [12]Hex N. Bartlett C. Wright D. Taylor M. Varley D. Estimating the current and future costs of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs Diabet Med 29 2012 855 862 22537247
  10. [13]Easton D.F. Peto J. Babiker A.G. Floating absolute risk: an alternative to relative risk in survival and case-control analysis avoiding an arbitrary reference group Stat Med 10 1991 1025 1035 1652152
  11. [14]Wormser D. White I.R. Thompson S.G. Wood A.M. Within-person variability in calculated risk factors: comparing the aetiological association of adiposity ratios with risk of coronary heart disease Int J Epidemiol 42 2013 849 859 23918853 PMC3733701
  12. [15]Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration Erqou S. Kaptoge S. Perry P.L. Lipoprotein(a) concentration and the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and nonvascular mortality JAMA 302 2009 412 423 19622820 PMC3272390
  13. [17]Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration Kaptoge S. Di Angelantonio E. Lowe G. C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis Lancet 375 2010 132 140 20031199 PMC3162187
  14. [18]Prospective Studies Collaboration Lewington S. Whitlock G. Clarke R. Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths Lancet 370 2007 1829 1839 18061058
  15. [19]Ridker P.M. Pradhan A. MacFadyen J.G. Libby P. Glynn R.J. Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention: an analysis from the JUPITER trial Lancet 380 2012 565 571 22883507 PMC3774022
  16. [20]Elliott W.J. Meyer P.M. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis Lancet 369 2007 201 207 17240286
  17. [22]Prospective Studies Collaboration Whitlock G. Lewington S. Sherliker P. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies Lancet 373 2009 1083 1096 19299006 PMC2662372
  18. [23]Chihaoui M. Kanoun F. Ben Rehaiem B. Predictive risk factors for deterioration from normoglycemic state to type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance in a Tunisian urban population Diabetes Metab 27 2001 487 495 11547223
  19. [24]Sawada S.S. Lee I.M. Naito H. Long-term trends in cardiorespiratory fitness and the incidence of type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care 33 2010 1353 1357 20215460 PMC2875453
  20. [25]Burchfiel C.M. Curb J.D. Rodriguez B.L. Incidence and predictors of diabetes in Japanese-American men. The Honolulu Heart Program Ann Epidemiol 5 1995 33 43 7728283
  21. [26]Lindholm L.H. Ibsen H. Borch-Johnsen K. Risk of new-onset diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study J Hypertens 20 2002 1879 1886 12195132
  22. [27]Cooper-DeHoff R. Cohen J.D. Bakris G.L. Predictors of development of diabetes mellitus in patients with coronary artery disease taking antihypertensive medications (findings from the INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril STudy [INVEST]) Am J Cardiol 98 2006 890 894 16996868
  23. [28]McMurray J.J. Holman R.R. Haffner S.M. for the NAVIGATOR Study Group Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events N Engl J Med 362 2010 1477 1490 20228403
  24. [29]Carter B.L. Einhorn P.T. Brands M. Thiazide-induced dysglycemia: call for research from a working group from the national heart, lung, and blood institute Hypertension 52 2008 30 36 18504319
  25. [30]Pradhan A.D. Manson J.E. Rifai N. C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, and risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus JAMA 286 2001 327 334 11466099
  26. [32]Ridker P.M. Danielson E. Rifai N. Glynn R.J. Val-MARC Investigators. Valsartan, blood pressure reduction, and C-reactive protein: primary report of the Val-MARC trial Hypertension 48 2006 73 79 16714425

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Emdin, C. A., Anderson, S. G., Woodward, M., & Rahimi, K.
Affiliations
  • The George Institute for Global Health (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Rahimi, Kazem
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
66
Issue
14
Pages
1552-1562
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.059
PMC
PMC4595710
OpenAlex
W2185264818
Cited by
216
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2012-06-001)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, new-onset diabetes, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, body mass index, age, antihypertensive therapy, lipid-lowering therapy, dose-response relationship
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Body Mass Index, Incidence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review