METHODS: Participants in the HOPE 4 intervention group with baseline and 12 months of follow-up were included for analysis. They were divided into Every Visit (n=339) and
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.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether a community-based, multifaceted intervention package primarily provided by nonphysician health workers can improve long-term cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension by addressing identified barriers at the patient, health care provider, and health system levels.
METHODS/DESIGN: HOPE-4 is a community-based, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial involving 30 communities (1,376 participants) in Colombia and Malaysia. Participants ≥50 years old and with newly diagnosed or poorly controlled hypertension were included. Communities were randomized to usual care or to a multifaceted intervention package that entails (1) detection, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors by nonphysician health workers in the community, who use tablet-based simplified management algorithms, decision support, and counseling programs; (2) free dispensation of combination antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications, supervised by local physicians; and (3) support from a participant-nominated treatment supporter (either a friend or family member). The primary outcome is the change in Framingham Risk Score after 12 months between the intervention and control communities. Secondary outcomes including change in blood pressure, lipid levels, and Interheart Risk Score will be evaluated.
SIGNIFICANCE: If successful, the study could serve as a model to develop low-cost, effective, and scalable strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension.
RESULTS: Important issues were identified during the data harmonisation process relating to data ownership, sharing methodologies and ethical concerns. Measures were assessed across eight domains; demographic; dietary; clinical and anthropometric; medical history; hypertension knowledge; physical activity; behavioural (smoking and alcohol); and biochemical domains. Identifying validated measures relevant across a variety of settings presented some difficulties. The resulting GACD hypertension data dictionary comprises 67 consensus measures. Of the 14 responding teams, only two teams were including more than 50 consensus variables, five teams were including between 25 and 50 consensus variables and four teams were including between 6 and 24 consensus variables, one team did not provide details of the variables collected and two teams did not include any of the consensus variables as the project had already commenced or the measures were not relevant to their study.
CONCLUSIONS: Deriving consensus measures across diverse research projects and contexts was challenging. The major barrier to their implementation was related to the time taken to develop and present these measures. Inclusion of consensus measures into future funding announcements would facilitate researchers integrating these measures within application protocols. We suggest that adoption of consensus measures developed here, across the field of hypertension, would help advance the science in this area, allowing for more comparable data sets and generalizable inferences.
METHODS: Using a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned participants without cardiovascular disease who had an elevated INTERHEART Risk Score to receive a polypill (containing 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril) or placebo daily, aspirin (75 mg) or placebo daily, and vitamin D or placebo monthly. We report here the outcomes for the polypill alone as compared with matching placebo, for aspirin alone as compared with matching placebo, and for the polypill plus aspirin as compared with double placebo. For the polypill-alone and polypill-plus-aspirin comparisons, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or revascularization. For the aspirin comparison, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety was also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 5713 participants underwent randomization, and the mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was lower by approximately 19 mg per deciliter and systolic blood pressure was lower by approximately 5.8 mm Hg with the polypill and with combination therapy than with placebo. The primary outcome for the polypill comparison occurred in 126 participants (4.4%) in the polypill group and in 157 (5.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.00). The primary outcome for the aspirin comparison occurred in 116 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group and in 134 (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10). The primary outcome for the polypill-plus-aspirin comparison occurred in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). The incidence of hypotension or dizziness was higher in groups that received the polypill than in their respective placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with a polypill plus aspirin led to a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than did placebo among participants without cardiovascular disease who were at intermediate cardiovascular risk. (Funded by the Wellcome Trust and others; TIPS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01646437.).
OBJECTIVES: Based on the growing evidence that many elements of chronic disease management can be shifted to nonphysician health care workers (NPHW), the HOPE-4 (Heart Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation Program) aimed to develop, test, and implement a training curriculum on CVD prevention and control in Colombia, Malaysia, and low-resource settings in Canada.
METHODS: Curriculum development followed an iterative and phased approach where evidence-based guidelines, revised blood pressure treatment algorithms, and culturally relevant risk factor counseling were incorporated. Through a pilot-training process with high school students in Canada, the curriculum was further refined. Implementation of the curriculum in Colombia, Malaysia, and Canada occurred through partner organizations as the HOPE-4 team coordinated the program from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. In addition to content on the burden of disease, cardiovascular system pathophysiology, and CVD risk factors, the curriculum also included evaluations such as module tests, in-class exercises, and observed structured clinical examinations, which were administered by the local partner organizations. These evaluations served as indicators of adequate uptake of curriculum content as well as readiness to work as an NPHW in the field.
RESULTS: Overall, 51 NPHW successfully completed the training curriculum with an average score of 93.19% on module tests and 84.76% on the observed structured clinical examinations. Since implementation, the curriculum has also been adapted to the World Health Organization's HEARTS Technical Package, which was launched in 2016 to improve management of CVD in primary health care.
CONCLUSIONS: The robust curriculum development, testing, and implementation process described affirm that NPHW in diverse settings can be trained in implementing measures for CVD prevention and control.