Key result
A multifactor primary preventive screening program in a Swedish community revealed that at least 50% of men needing hypertension treatment were unaware of it, and only 15% were adequately treated.
RCT
No
Highlights undetected hypertension burden; leaves open whether community screening improves control or outcomes.
Summary. In a multifactor primary preventive trial currently in progress in Gothenburg, one‐third of men born between 1915–1922 and 1924–1925 were examined. The remaining two‐thirds acted as controls. Coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke account for a considerable part of fatal and non‐fatal serious events in this population. In the intervention group the mortality was considerably higher among the non‐participants than among the participants. Hypertension is the main risk factor for stroke and is important in addition to hypercholesterolemia and smoking in CHD. The experiences concerning hypertension in the present population samale have been that: Between 10% and iO% of men aged 47–55 years need treatment for high blood pressure. At least 50% of these men do not know that they have hypertension and only 15% were on adequate treatment at the screening examination. With the provision of information and use of calling system the drop‐out rate during the first year of follow‐up was only 1–2%. Adverse drug reactions have not been a serious problem. A major problem is the difficulty in controlling BP during the whole day including stressful events. Another problem is to find simple additional tests which can reveal the prognosis in “borderline hypertension”.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lars Wilhelmsen (1975) conducted an RCT in Hypertension. Multifactor primary preventive screening and treatment vs. No screening (controls) was evaluated. A multifactor primary preventive screening program in a Swedish community revealed that at least 50% of men needing hypertension treatment were unaware of it, and only 15% were adequately treated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: