No association between genetic markers and hypertension control in multiple cross-sectional studies.

We aimed to assess whether genetic markers are associated with hypertension control using two cross-sectional surveys conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. Management of hypertension was assessed as per ESC guidelines using the 140/90 or the 130/80 mm Hg thresholds. One genetic risk score (GRS) for hypertension (18 SNPs) and 133 individual SNPs related to response to specific antihypertensive drugs were tested. We included 1073 (first) and 1157 (second survey) participants treated for hypertension. The prevalence of controlled participants using the 140/90 threshold was 58.8% and 63.6% in the first and second follow-up, respectively. On multivariable analysis, only older age was consistently and negatively associated with hypertension control. No consistent associations were found between GRS and hypertension control (140/90 threshold) for both surveys: Odds ratio and (95% confidence interval) for the highest vs. the lowest quartile of the GRS: 1.06 (0.71-1.58) p = 0.788, and 1.11 (0.71-1.72) p = 0.657, in the first and second survey, respectively. Similar findings were obtained using the 130/80 threshold: 1.23 (0.79-1.90) p = 0.360 and 1.09 (0.69-1.73) p = 0.717, in the first and second survey, respectively. No association between individual SNPs and hypertension control was found. We conclude that control of hypertension is poor in Switzerland. No association between GRS or SNPs and hypertension control was found.

Trends and determinants of prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of dyslipidaemia in canton of Geneva, 2005-2019: Potent statins are underused.

We assessed 1) trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment and control rates of dyslipidaemia and associated factors, 2) the effect of statin generation/potency on control levels and 3) the effect of ESC lipid guidelines, on lipid management. Data from multiple cross-sectional, population-based surveys conducted between 2005 and 2019 in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, were used. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control rates of dyslipidaemia were 46.0% and 34.9% (p < 0.001), 67.0% and 77.3% (p = 0.124), 40.0% and 19.9% (p < 0.001), and 68.0% and 84.0% (p = 0.255), in 2005 and 2019, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, only the decrease in treatment rates was significant. Increasing age, higher BMI, history of hypertension or diabetes were positively associated with prevalence, while female sex was negatively associated. Female sex, history of diabetes or CVD were positively associated with awareness, while increasing age was negatively associated. Increasing age, smoking, higher BMI, history of hypertension, diabetes or CVD were positively associated with treatment, while female sex was negatively associated. Female sex was positively associated with control, while increasing age was negatively associated. Highly potent statins increased from 50.0% to 87.5% and third generation statins from 0% to 47.5% in 2009 and 2015, respectively. Increased statin potency was borderline (p = 0.059) associated with dyslipidaemia control. ESC guidelines had no effect regarding the prescription of more potent or higher generation statins. We conclude that in the canton of Geneva, treatment of diagnosed dyslipidaemia is low, but control is adequate. Women are undertreated but better controlled than men. The most potent hypolipidemic drugs are underused.

Association of clinical and genetic risk factors with management of dyslipidaemia: analysis of repeated cross-sectional studies in the general population of Lausanne, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the importance of clinical and genetic factors in management of dyslipidaemia in the general population. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional studies (2003-2006; 2009-2012 and 2014-2017) from a population-based cohort. SETTING: Single centre in Lausanne, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 617 (42.6% women, mean±SD: 61.6±8.5 years), 844 (48.5% women, 64.5±8.8 years) and 798 (50.3% women, 68.1±9.2) participants of the baseline, first and second follow-ups receiving any type of lipid-lowering drug. Participants were excluded if they had missing information regarding lipid levels, covariates or genetic data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Management of dyslipidaemia was assessed according to European or Swiss guidelines. Genetic risk scores (GRSs) for lipid levels were computed based on the existing literature. RESULTS: Prevalence of adequately controlled dyslipidaemia was 52%, 45% and 46% at baseline, first and second follow-ups, respectively. On multivariable analysis, when compared with intermediate or low-risk individuals, participants at very high cardiovascular risk had an OR for dyslipidaemia control of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.18), 0.12 (0.08 to 0.19) and 0.38 (0.25 to 0.59) at baseline, first and second follow-ups, respectively. Use of newer generation or higher potency statins was associated with better control: OR of 1.90 (1.18 to 3.05) and 3.62 (1.65 to 7.92) for second and third generations compared with first in the first follow-up, with the corresponding values in the second follow-up being 1.90 (1.08 to 3.36) and 2.18 (1.05 to 4.51). No differences in GRSs were found between controlled and inadequately controlled subjects. Similar findings were obtained using Swiss guidelines. CONCLUSION: Management of dyslipidaemia is suboptimal in Switzerland. The effectiveness of high potency statins is hampered by low posology. The use of GRSs in the management of dyslipidaemia is not recommended.

Association between genetic risk of high SBP and hypertension control: the CoLaus|PsyColaus study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a genetic risk score (GRS) for high SBP is associated with poor control of hypertension. METHODS: Data from the four waves of a population-based, prospective study conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. Control of hypertension was defined based on SBP less than 140 mmHg and DBP less than 90 mmHg. A weighted GRS was computed from 362 SNPs. RESULTS: Overall, 1097 (51% men, mean age 61 years), 1126 (53% men, age 65 years), 1020 (52% men, age 69 years) and 809 (50% men, age 71 years) participants treated for hypertension were selected from the baseline (2003-2006), first (2009-2012), second (2014-2017) and third (2018-2021) surveys. Hypertension control rates were 50, 58, 52 and 59% for the baseline, first, second and third surveys, respectively. No association was found between GRS and hypertension control: multivariate-adjusted mean ±â€Šstandard error for controlled vs. uncontrolled participants: 9.30 ±â€Š0.09 vs. 9.50 ±â€Š0.09 ( P  = 0.12); 9.32 ±â€Š0.08 vs. 9.53 ±â€Š0.10 ( P  = 0.10); 9.17 ±â€Š0.08 vs. 9.34 ±â€Š0.11 ( P  = 0.22), and 9.18 ±â€Š0.09 vs. 9.46 ±â€Š0.11 ( P  = 0.07) for the baseline, first, second and third surveys, respectively. Power analysis showed that a minimum of 3410 people treated for hypertension would be necessary to detect an association between the GRS and hypertension control rates. Notably, positive associations between the GRS and SBP levels were found among participants not treated for hypertension, with Spearman correlations ranging between 0.05 and 0.09 (all P  < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using a GRS associated with SBP levels is not predictive of hypertension control. The use of GRS for hypertension management is not warranted in clinical practice.http://links.lww.com/HJH/C26.