METHODS: Subjects were 200 consecutive patients admitted to Kuala Tereng-ganu General Hospital, Malaysia with severe hypertension in pregnancy between August 1989 and June 1990. Admission criteria were an ongoing viable pregnancy more than 28 weeks and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) more than 120 mmHg. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. In group I, sublingual nifedipine 5 mg was administered and repeated after 15 minutes if DBP > 120 mmHg; and in group II hydrallazine 5 mg was intravenously injected and repeated after 15 minutes if DBP > 120 mmHg. Both groups were put on hydrallazine infusion if DBP > 120 mmHg after 30 minutes. The Chi-square test was used for analysis with significance at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the efficacy of therapy for decreasing blood pressure between the 2 groups. The groups were comparable by age, parity, gestational age at presentation, birth weight of infants, incidence of postpartum haemorrhage and fetal distress. Caesarian section rates were similar. In the observational studies on nurses administering the drugs, no significant difficulties were observed.
CONCLUSION: Sublingual nifedipine was comparable to IV hydrallazine in the treatment of acute hypertension of pregnancy. Nurses were able to administer lingual nifedipine without difficulty.
METHODS: HOPE 4 was an open, community-based, cluster-randomised controlled trial involving 1371 individuals with new or poorly controlled hypertension from 30 communities (defined as townships) in Colombia and Malaysia. 16 communities were randomly assigned to control (usual care, n=727), and 14 (n=644) to the intervention. After community screening, the intervention included treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors by NPHWs using tablet computer-based simplified management algorithms and counselling programmes; free antihypertensive and statin medications recommended by NPHWs but supervised by physicians; and support from a family member or friend (treatment supporter) to improve adherence to medications and healthy behaviours. The primary outcome was the change in Framingham Risk Score 10-year cardiovascular disease risk estimate at 12 months between intervention and control participants. The HOPE 4 trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826019.
FINDINGS: All communities completed 12-month follow-up (data on 97% of living participants, n=1299). The reduction in Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was -6·40% (95% CI 8·00 to -4·80) in the control group and -11·17% (-12·88 to -9·47) in the intervention group, with a difference of change of -4·78% (95% CI -7·11 to -2·44, p<0·0001). There was an absolute 11·45 mm Hg (95% CI -14·94 to -7·97) greater reduction in systolic blood pressure, and a 0·41 mmol/L (95% CI -0·60 to -0·23) reduction in LDL with the intervention group (both p<0·0001). Change in blood pressure control status (<140 mm Hg) was 69% in the intervention group versus 30% in the control group (p<0·0001). There were no safety concerns with the intervention.
INTERPRETATION: A comprehensive model of care led by NPHWs, involving primary care physicians and family that was informed by local context, substantially improved blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease risk. This strategy is effective, pragmatic, and has the potential to substantially reduce cardiovascular disease compared with current strategies that are typically physician based.
FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Grand Challenges Canada; Ontario SPOR Support Unit and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; Boehringer Ingelheim; Department of Management of Non-Communicable Diseases, WHO; and Population Health Research Institute. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
METHODS: A Markov model cohort simulation with a 6-month cycle length to predict acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure throughout lifetime was performed. A cohort of 399 patients was obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions in community-based medical offices in the Midwest, USA. Framingham risk equations and other algorithms were used to predict the vascular diseases. SBP reduction due to the interventions deteriorated until 5 years. Direct medical costs using a payer perspective were adjusted to 2015 dollar value, and the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); both were discounted at 3%. The intervention costs were estimated from the trials, whereas the remaining parameters were from published studies. A series of sensitivity analyses including changing patient risks of vascular diseases, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were performed.
RESULTS: The lifetime incremental costs were $26 807.83 per QALY (QALYs gained = 0.14). The intervention provided the greatest benefit for the high-risk patients, moderate benefit for the trial patients, and the lowest benefit for the low-risk patients. If a payer is willing to pay $50 000 per QALY gained, in 48.6% of the time the intervention would be cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Team-based care such as a physician-pharmacist collaboration appears to be a cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension. The intervention is most cost-effective for high-risk patients.
METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, case-controlled study, conducted over 12 months. Fifty-two consecutive patients referred for secondary hypertension were screened. Eighteen patients with confirmed PA (diagnosis based on the Endocrine Society clinical guideline) and seventeen matched controls with essential hypertension were recruited. BTM (CTX and P1NP), BMD, intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH), and bone profile were assessed at baseline and three months following treatment among the PA patients. Calcium intake was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Primary outcomes were the changes of bone markers and BMD following treatment of PA, and their relation to other parameters.
RESULTS: PA patients had significantly lower serum calcium and higher iPTH despite comparable vitamin D levels with control group. Both BTM were significantly higher among the PA group. BMD of lumbar spine, neck of femur and distal radius did not differ between groups. Three months following treatment, there were significant: 1) reduction in BTM; 2) improvement in the lumbar spine BMD; 3) reduction in iPTH level; and 4) increment of serum 25-OH vitamin D level.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support that bone loss and potential fracture risk among PA patients are likely a result of aldosterone-mediated secondary hyperparathyroidism. Patients with early PA may already exhibit increased bone turnover despite no significant changes in BMD.
AIM: To review the existing literature to definitively examine sexual dysfunction in women with hypertension, in both treated and untreated subjects.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search for published literature of 3 electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCOhost Medline Complete, and Cochrane Library) in August 2018. The search terms with relevant truncation and Boolean were developed according to a population exposure-comparator-outcome model combining pilot searches. The quality of included studies was assessed with the McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies. Initial search, limited to the English language, included a total of 2,198 studies. 31 studies (18,260 subjects) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Sexual dysfunction in these studies was measured using different tools. We extracted information of study setting, country, number of subjects, participants' age and blood pressure, comparators, and outcome. We ran a meta-analysis on the presence of sexual dysfunction as an outcome from the following comparisons: (i) hypertensive vs normotensive (ii) treated vs untreated hypertension, and (iii) exposure vs absence of specific class of anti-hypertensive drug.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women with sexual dysfunction and hypertension were included.
RESULTS: We found significant sexual dysfunction in women with hypertension compared with the normotensive group (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 2.789, 95% CI = 1.452-5.357, P = .002). However, there was no statistical difference of sexual dysfunction in women with treated or untreated hypertension (OR = 1.229, 95% CI = 0.675-2.236, P = .5). Treatment with alpha-/beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics resulted in no statistical difference in sexual dysfunction in hypertensive women.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Because sexual dysfunction is prevalent in women with hypertension, it is imperative to address the underlying medical condition to manage this important clinical problem.
STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Many studies had to be excluded from the meta-analysis, due to unavailability and incompleteness of data. Nevertheless, results of the review are useful to derive recommendations for alerting physicians of the need to routinely assess the sexual functioning of women with hypertension.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that women with hypertension are at increased risk for sexual dysfunction, and our findings imply that evaluation for sexual dysfunction needs to be part of the clinical management guidelines for women with hypertension. Choy CL, Sidi H, Koon CS, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Sexual Dysfunction in Women With Hypertension. J Sex Med 2019;16:1029-1048.
METHODS: A prespecified systematic review of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from inception to 23 June 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials that compared active BP-lowering agents versus placebo or intensive versus guideline BP-lowering targets for adults <7 days after ICH onset. The primary outcome was function (distribution of scores on the modified Rankin scale) 90 days after randomisation. Radiological outcomes were absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) haematoma growth at 24 hours. Meta-analysis used a one-stage approach, adjusted using generalised linear mixed models with prespecified covariables and trial as a random effect.
RESULTS: Of 7094 studies identified, 50 trials involving 11 494 patients were eligible and 16 (32.0%) shared patient-level data from 6221 (54.1%) patients (mean age 64.2 [SD 12.9], 2266 [36.4%] females) with a median time from symptom onset to randomisation of 3.8 hours (IQR 2.6-5.3). Active/intensive BP-lowering interventions had no effect on the primary outcome compared with placebo/guideline treatment (adjusted OR for unfavourable shift in modified Rankin scale scores: 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; p=0.50), but there was significant heterogeneity by strategy (pinteraction=0.031) and agent (pinteraction<0.0001). Active/intensive BP-lowering interventions clearly reduced absolute (>6 ml, adjusted OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.60 to 0.92; p=0.0077) and relative (≥33%, adjusted OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.68 to 0.99; p=0.034) haematoma growth.
INTERPRETATION: Overall, a broad range of interventions to lower BP within 7 days of ICH onset had no overall benefit on functional recovery, despite reducing bleeding. The treatment effect appeared to vary according to strategy and agent.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019141136.
METHODS: We analysed the availability, costs, and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines with data recorded from 626 communities in 20 countries participating in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study. Medicines were considered available if they were present in the local pharmacy when surveyed, and affordable if their combined cost was less than 20% of the households' capacity to pay. We related information about availability and affordability to use of these medicines and blood pressure control with multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models, and compared results for high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries. Data for India are presented separately because it has a large generic pharmaceutical industry and a higher availability of medicines than other countries at the same economic level.
FINDINGS: The availability of two or more classes of blood pressure-lowering drugs was lower in low-income and middle-income countries (except for India) than in high-income countries. The proportion of communities with four drug classes available was 94% in high-income countries (108 of 115 communities), 76% in India (68 of 90), 71% in upper-middle-income countries (90 of 126), 47% in lower-middle-income countries (107 of 227), and 13% in low-income countries (nine of 68). The proportion of households unable to afford two blood pressure-lowering medicines was 31% in low-income countries (1069 of 3479 households), 9% in middle-income countries (5602 of 65 471), and less than 1% in high-income countries (44 of 10 880). Participants with known hypertension in communities that had all four drug classes available were more likely to use at least one blood pressure-lowering medicine (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·23, 95% CI 1·59-3·12); p<0·0001), combination therapy (1·53, 1·13-2·07; p=0·054), and have their blood pressure controlled (2·06, 1·69-2·50; p<0·0001) than were those in communities where blood pressure-lowering medicines were not available. Participants with known hypertension from households able to afford four blood pressure-lowering drug classes were more likely to use at least one blood pressure-lowering medicine (adjusted OR 1·42, 95% CI 1·25-1·62; p<0·0001), combination therapy (1·26, 1·08-1·47; p=0·0038), and have their blood pressure controlled (1·13, 1·00-1·28; p=0·0562) than were those unable to afford the medicines.
INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of communities in low-income and middle-income countries do not have access to more than one blood pressure-lowering medicine and, when available, they are often not affordable. These factors are associated with poor blood pressure control. Ensuring access to affordable blood pressure-lowering medicines is essential for control of hypertension in low-income and middle-income countries.
FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, pharmaceutical companies (with major contributions from AstraZeneca [Canada], Sanofi Aventis [France and Canada], Boehringer Ingelheim [Germany amd Canada], Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline), Novartis and King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.