Department of Primary and Community Care (S.C.K., J.C.B., M.C.v.d.W.), Department of Internal Medicine (T.D., A.R.H., J.W.L., J.D.), Department for Health Evidence (H.J.G., G.J.v.d.W.), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine III (J.W.L.), University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Jul;101(7):2826-35. doi: 10.1210/jc.2016-1472. Epub 2016 May 12.
For health care planning and allocation of resources, realistic estimation of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism is necessary. Reported prevalences of primary aldosteronism are highly variable, possibly due to study heterogeneity.
Our objective was to identify and explain heterogeneity in studies that aimed to establish the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in hypertensive patients.
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists from January 1, 1990, to January 31, 2015, were used as data sources.
Description of an adult hypertensive patient population with confirmed diagnosis of primary aldosteronism was included in this study.
Dual extraction and quality assessment were the forms of data extraction.
Thirty-nine studies provided data on 42 510 patients (nine studies, 5896 patients from primary care). Prevalence estimates varied from 3.2% to 12.7% in primary care and from 1% to 29.8% in referral centers. Heterogeneity was too high to establish point estimates (I(2) = 57.6% in primary care; 97.1% in referral centers). Meta-regression analysis showed higher prevalences in studies 1) published after 2000, 2) from Australia, 3) aimed at assessing prevalence of secondary hypertension, 4) that were retrospective, 5) that selected consecutive patients, and 6) not using a screening test. All studies had minor or major flaws.
This study demonstrates that it is pointless to claim low or high prevalence of primary aldosteronism based on published reports. Because of the significant impact of a diagnosis of primary aldosteronism on health care resources and the necessary facilities, our findings urge for a prevalence study whose design takes into account the factors identified in the meta-regression analysis.
为了进行医疗保健规划和资源分配,有必要对原发性醛固酮增多症的流行情况进行实际估计。原发性醛固酮增多症的报告患病率差异很大,这可能是由于研究的异质性所致。
我们的目的是确定并解释旨在确定高血压患者原发性醛固酮增多症患病率的研究中的异质性。
从 1990 年 1 月 1 日至 2015 年 1 月 31 日,我们使用 PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆和参考文献作为资料来源。
本研究纳入了描述经证实患有原发性醛固酮增多症的成年高血压患者人群的研究。
采用双重提取和质量评估的形式进行资料提取。
39 项研究提供了 42510 例患者(9 项研究,来自初级保健的 5896 例患者)的数据。初级保健中的患病率估计值从 3.2%到 12.7%不等,而转诊中心中的患病率从 1%到 29.8%不等。由于异质性太高,无法确定点估计值(初级保健中为 57.6%;转诊中心中为 97.1%)。元回归分析显示,发表时间晚于 2000 年、来自澳大利亚、旨在评估继发性高血压患病率、回顾性研究、选择连续患者、未使用筛查试验的研究,其患病率更高。所有研究都存在轻微或严重的缺陷。
本研究表明,根据已发表的报告声称原发性醛固酮增多症的患病率低或高是毫无意义的。由于原发性醛固酮增多症的诊断对医疗保健资源和必要设施有重大影响,我们的研究结果敦促进行一项患病率研究,其设计应考虑到元回归分析中确定的因素。