METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.

RESULTS: Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost-utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.

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.

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.