| Literature DB >> 31431679 |
K M Saif-Ur-Rahman1,2, Syed Shariful Islam3,4, Md Hasan3,4, Shahed Hossain5,6, Razib Mamun5,3, Sohana Shafique5, Al Mamun5, Md Khalequzzaman3,4, Fariha Haseen3,4, Aminur Rahman5, Iqbal Anwar5.
Abstract
Hypertension is the single biggest cause of various cardiovascular complications and at the same time one of the most preventable phenomena. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are facing increasing prevalence of hypertension which is imposing a huge burden on morbidity, premature mortality, and catastrophic health expenditure. This systematic review searched for the nonpharmacological interventions for prevention of hypertension among normotensive people in LMICs considering the period 1990-2016. This review has been conducted following standard methodology of Cochrane review involving two independent reviewers in screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction. Narrative synthesis of included articles was demonstrated using tables and meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimates of studies which fulfilled the criteria. Total seven trials were included in the review with 6046 participants from eight LMICs. Two cluster randomized trials were pooled and there was a statistically significant effect (Systolic Blood Pressure: mean difference -2.35 [95% CI: -4.31 to -0.38], Diastolic Blood Pressure: mean difference -2.11 [95% CI: -3.20 to -1.02]) of home based health education in reducing blood pressure. Three individual studies reported reduction of blood pressure as a result of restricted dietary sodium intake. None of the studies was appraised as low risk of bias due to poor methodological quality. Non-pharmacological interventions can play important role in preventing the development of hypertension among normotensive people. Further trials with longer follow-up period and robust methods are recommended for getting stronger evidence on these interventions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31431679 PMCID: PMC6892411 DOI: 10.1038/s41371-019-0223-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Hypertens ISSN: 0950-9240 Impact factor: 3.012
Fig. 1Flow diagram of the inclusion process
Fig. 2Overall risk of bias among the included articles
Fig. 3Risk of bias assessment in individual studies
Characteristics of the of the included articles
| Author | Year of Publication | Sample Size | Study design | Country | Age in Year | Gender | Intervention | Duration of intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cappuccio et al. [ | 2006 | I—522 C—491 | RCT—cluster randomized design | Ghana | I-54 C−55 | M and F | Health education vs control | Daily meeting for the first week—once weekly thereafter. |
| Azadbakht et al. [ | 2011 | I and C—23 | RCT—crossover design | Iran | 18–30 | F | Soy drink vs cow’s milk | 6 weeks |
| Adeyemo et al. [ | 2002 | 82 | RCT | Nigeria | >25 | M and F | Reduced salt intake | 2 weeks |
| Hofmeyr et al. [ | 2015 | I—1st trial; 1st—181, 2nd—97 C—2nd trial; 1st—186, 2nd—104 | RCT | South Africa, Zimbabwe and Argentina | ≥18, mean 30.3 | F | Calcium tablet | 12 weeks (1st trial visit) 24 weeks (2nd trial visit) |
| Forrester et al. [ | 2005 | Nigeria 58, Jamaica 56 | RCT—crossover design | Nigeria, Jamaica | 25–55 | M and F | Low-salt vs high-salt diet | 8 weeks (intervention 3 weeks, follow up 2 weeks, washout 3 weeks) |
| Jessani et al. [ | 2008 | 200 | RCT—crossover design | Pakistan | ≥40 | M and F | Low sodium vs high sodium | 3 weeks (intervention 1 week, follow up1 week, washout 1 week) |
| Jafar et al. [ | 2010 | I 2008 C 2015 | RCT—cluster randomized design | Pakistan | May-39 | M and F | Health education vs control | 3 months |
I Intervention group, C control group, M Male, F Female
Summary results of the studies not included in meta-analysis
| Authors | Intervention | SBP | DBP | Mean percent changes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline/placebo | Endline/intervention | Baseline/placebo | Endline/intervention | SBP | DBP | ||||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||
| Azadbakht et al. [ | |||||||||||||
| Cow’s milk | 102.1 | 2.2 | 100 | 2.1 | 65.6 | 2.2 | 65.8 | 2 | −1.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | |
| Soy milk | 100.8 | 2.1 | 96 | 2.2 | 66.3 | 2 | 66 | 2.2 | −4 | 0.9 | −0.4 | 0.1 | |
| Adeyemo et al. [ | Manual Low vs high sodium diet—women | 110.1 | 14.6 | 103.1 | 9.8 | 69.1 | 11.5 | 67.5 | 7.5 | −7 | 4.4 | −1.6 | 3.4 |
| Adeyemo et al. [ | Low vs high sodium diet—men | 116.8 | 15.3 | 112.1 | 12.5 | 74 | 9.5 | 72.1 | 9.5 | −4.7 | 2.8 | −1.9 | 2.2 |
| Hofmeyr et al. [ | 1st trial—Placebo vs Calcium supplementation | 126.1 | 16.3 | 127.4 | 17.2 | 81.6 | 11.5 | 81.5 | 13 | 1.4 | 3 | 1 | 2.4 |
| 2nd trial—Placebo vs Calcium supplementation | 126.8 | 16 | 131 | 19.6 | 81.9 | 11.4 | 83.6 | 14.5 | 2.5 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 3.5 | |
| Forrester et al. [ | Nigeria—high vs low sodium phase | 114.8 | 11.4 | 73.3 | 9.1 | 4.5 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2 | ||||
| Jamaica—high vs low sodium phase | 122.3 | 10.2 | 75.9 | 7.3 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 2.3 | |||||
| Jessani et al. [ | High sodium phase | 122 | 11 | 134 | 40 | 79 | 6 | 82 | 13.5 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| High normal SBP | Low sodium phase | 122 | 11 | 128 | 20 | 79 | 6 | 81 | 13.5 | ||||
| Jessani et al. [ | High sodium phase | 122 | 11 | 118 | 27 | 79 | 6 | 82 | 13.5 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Normal SBP | Low sodium phase | 122 | 11 | 119 | 27 | 79 | 6 | 81 | 13.5 | ||||
Fig. 4Comparison between home health education (HHE) and no HHE, outcome effect mean difference of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure