Intervention for prehypertension and its cardiovascular risk factors in Inner Mongolia

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Blood pressure levels were evaluated among prehypertension patients with associated cardiovascular risk factors to determine the effect of different interventions with respect to new endpoint events. A total of 1112 patients were equally and randomly divided into control, lifestyle, drug, and lifestyle + drug groups, and were followed-up for 12 months. We collected the age, height, weight, blood pressure, heart rate, blood lipid levels, blood glucose levels, and other clinical data from all subjects at the baseline and at the end of the follow-up period. The average systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in the intervention groups were significantly reduced after the intervention (lifestyle + drug > drug > lifestyle). SBP and DBP were higher in the control group than before intervention (P < 0.05). Age, gender, heart rate, triglyceride (TG) levels, body mass index (BMI), alcohol consumption, and family history were the major factors affecting blood pressure. Increased BMI, TG, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, alcohol consumption, family history, SBP, and DBP were major risk factors of hypertension. At the end of the follow-up period, there were 67 cases of hypertension, 32 cases of diabetes, and 12 cases of the endpoint events. Hypertension and diabetes events were reduced in the intervention groups relative to the control group (P < 0.05). The number of cases with incident cardiovascular endpoints did not differ among the three intervention groups (P > 0.05). Therefore, hypertension and related cardiovascular events can be controlled with different interventions.

The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes incidence and cardiometabolic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from low- and middle-income countries

“…Study characteristics and descriptions of the interventions and main findings of eligible studies are summarised quantitatively in Table 1 , and qualitatively reviewed in the appendix (pp 14-23). The majority of the eligible studies were published in the last decade, 2012-2022, (90%), and conducted in lower-middle (56%) 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 or upper-middle-income (44%) 23 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 countries. No eligible study was found in low-income countries.…”

“…No eligible study was found in low-income countries. By continent, the vast majority of studies (84%) were performed in Asia (15 in India, 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 12 in China, 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 66 , 67 , 68 five in Iran, 31 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 45 two in Thailand, 51 , 65 Vietnam, 30 , 49 Bangladesh, 24 , 32 and Sri Lanka, 26 , 32 and one in Jordan, 69 Pakistan, 39 and Mongolia 38 ), followed (14%) by America (three in Brasil, 52 , 64 , 70 two in Colombia, 23 , 62 and one in Cuba 59 ), and only one study (2%) in Africa (Egypt 34 ). To define at-risk populations, most studies selected participants with impaired glucose/prediabetes (52%) or presenting a combination of cardiometabolic risks (34%).…”

“…No intervention components related to financial incentives were identified. As per eligibility criteria, all interventions were evaluated using an RCT design with 74% of studies using individually randomisation 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 and 26% clustered randomisation. 24 , 25 , 30 , 31 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 57 , 58 , 60 When appraising the risk of bias using RCT-specific tools, 54% of studies were ranked as having medium risk, 23 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , ...…”