Search

Background: Little is known regarding the health effects of different hypertension phenotypes including isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH), and systolic and diastolic hypertension (SDH) defined by the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline among young adults. We conducted this longitudinal study using time-varying analyses to evaluate the relationship between cardiovascular/all-natural mortality risk and different hypertension phenotypes in young adults., Methods: A total of 284 597 young adults (aged 18-39 years) were recruited between 1996 and 2016. Participants were classified into eight mutually exclusive BP groups: normal blood pressure (BP), elevated BP, stage 1 IDH, stage 1 ISH, stage 1 SDH, stage 2 IDH, stage 2 ISH, and stage 2 SDH. The outcomes were cardiovascular and all-natural mortality., Results: After a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 2341 all-natural deaths with 442 cardiovascular deaths were observed. When compared with individuals with normal BP, the multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of cardiovascular mortality was 1.39 (1.01-1.93) for elevated BP, 2.00 (1.45-2.77) for stage 1 IDH, 1.66 (1.08-2.56) for stage 1 ISH, 3.08 (2.13-4.45) for stage 1 SDH, 2.85 (1.76-4.62) for stage 2 IDH, 4.30 (2.96-6.25) for stage 2 ISH, and 6.93 (4.99-9.61) for stage 2 SDH, respectively. In consideration to all-natural mortality, similar results were observed for stage 1 SDH, stage 2 ISH, and stage 2 SDH; but not for elevated BP, stage 1 IDH, stage 1 ISH, and stage 2 IDH., Conclusion: Young adults with stage 1 or stage 2 ISH, IDH, and SDH are at increased risk of cardiovascular death than those with normal BP. Regardless of BP stage, SDH was associated with a higher cardiovascular mortality risk than IDH and ISH., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Governments may relax physical distancing interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) containment in warm seasons/areas to prevent economic contractions. However, it is not clear whether higher temperature may offset the transmission risk posed by this relaxation. This study aims to investigate the associations of the effective reproductive number (R t ) of Covid-19 with ambient temperature and the implementation of physical distancing interventions in the United States (US). This study included 50 states and one territory of the US with 4,532,650 confirmed cases between 29 January and 31 July 2020. We used an interrupted time-series model with a state-level random intercept for data analysis. An interaction term of 'physical distancing×temperature' was included to examine their interactions. Stratified analyses by temperature and physical distancing implementation were also performed to analyse the modifying effects. The overall median (interquartile range) R t was 1.2 (1.0-2.3). The implementation of physical distancing was associated with a 12% decrease in the risk of R t (relative risk [RR]: 0.88, 95% confident interval [CI]: 0.86-0.89), and each 5 °C increase in temperature was associated with a 2% decrease (RR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.97-0.98). We observed a statistically significant interaction between temperature and physical distancing implementation, but all the RRs were small (close to one). The containing effects of high temperature were attenuated by 5.1% when physical distancing was implemented. The association of COVID-19 R t with physical distancing implementation was more stable (0.88 vs. 0.89 in days when temperature was low and high, respectively). Increased temperature did not offset the risk of Covid-19 R t posed by the relaxation of physical distancing implementation. Our study does not recommend relaxing the implementation of physical distancing interventions in warm seasons/areas., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declared that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)