Uthman Olalekan A, Hartley Louise, Rees Karen, Taylor Fiona, Ebrahim Shah, Clarke Aileen
Warwick Centre for Applied Health Research and Delivery (WCAHRD), Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 4;2015(8):CD011163. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011163.pub2.
In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have grown exponentially over recent years. It is estimated that about 80% of CVD deaths occur in LMICs. People in LMICs are more exposed to cardiovascular risk factors such as tobacco, and often do not have access to effective and equitable healthcare services (including early detection services). Evidence from high-income countries indicates that multiple risk factor intervention programmes do not result in reductions in CVD events. Given the increasing incidence of CVDs and lower CVD health awareness in LMICs it is possible that such programmes may have beneficial effects.
To determine the effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions (with or without pharmacological treatment) aimed at modifying major cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD in LMICs.
We searched (from inception to 27 June 2014) the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, EED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and three other databases on 27 June 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and conducted reference checking to identify additional studies. We applied no language limits.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health promotion interventions to achieve behaviour change (i.e. smoking cessation, dietary advice, increasing activity levels) with or without pharmacological treatments, which aim to alter more than one cardiovascular risk factor (i.e. diet, reduce blood pressure, smoking, total blood cholesterol or increase physical activity) of at least six months duration of follow-up conducted in LMICs.
Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and presented all results with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease events.
Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria and are included in the review. All studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Some studies were at high risk of bias for random sequence generation (two trials), allocation concealment (two trials), blinding of outcome assessors (one trial) and incomplete outcome data (one trial). Duration and content of multiple risk factor interventions varied across the trials. Two trials recruited healthy participants and the other 11 trials recruited people with varying risks of CVD, such as participants with known hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Only one study reported CVD outcomes and multiple risk factor interventions did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.07, 232 participants, low-quality evidence); the result is imprecise (a wide confidence interval and small sample size) and makes it difficult to draw a reliable conclusion. None of the included trials reported all-cause mortality. The pooled effect indicated a reduction in systolic blood pressure (MD -6.72 mmHg, 95% CI -9.82 to -3.61, I² = 91%, 4868 participants, low-quality evidence), diastolic blood pressure (MD -4.40 mmHg, 95% CI -6.47 to -2.34, I² = 92%, 4701 participants, low-quality evidence), body mass index (MD -0.76 kg/m², 95% CI -1.29 to -0.22, I² = 80%, 2984 participants, low-quality evidence) and waist circumference (MD -3.31, 95% CI -4.77 to -1.86, I² = 55%, 393 participants, moderate-quality evidence) in favour of multiple risk factor interventions, but there was substantial heterogeneity. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of these interventions on consumption of fruit or vegetables, smoking cessation, glycated haemoglobin, fasting blood sugar, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and total cholesterol. None of the included trials reported on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited evidence currently available, we can draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions on combined CVD events and mortality. There is some evidence that multiple risk factor interventions may lower blood pressure levels, body mass index and waist circumference in populations in LMIC settings at high risk of hypertension and diabetes. There was considerable heterogeneity between the trials, the trials were small, and at some risk of bias. Larger studies with longer follow-up periods are required to confirm whether multiple risk factor interventions lead to reduced CVD events and mortality in LMIC settings.
在许多低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs),近年来与心血管疾病(CVDs)相关的发病率和死亡率呈指数增长。据估计,约80%的心血管疾病死亡发生在低收入和中等收入国家。低收入和中等收入国家的人们更多地暴露于心血管危险因素,如烟草,而且往往无法获得有效且公平的医疗服务(包括早期检测服务)。高收入国家的证据表明,多危险因素干预项目并未降低心血管疾病事件的发生率。鉴于低收入和中等收入国家心血管疾病发病率不断上升且心血管健康意识较低,此类项目可能会产生有益效果。
确定旨在改变主要心血管危险因素以在低收入和中等收入国家进行心血管疾病一级预防的多危险因素干预措施(有无药物治疗)的有效性。
我们于2014年6月27日检索了Cochrane图书馆(CENTRAL、HTA、DARE、EED)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、全球健康数据库以及其他三个数据库(自数据库创建至2014年6月27日)。我们还检索了两个临床试验注册库并进行参考文献核对以识别其他研究。我们未设置语言限制。
我们纳入了健康促进干预措施的随机对照试验(RCTs),这些干预措施旨在实现行为改变(即戒烟、饮食建议、增加活动水平),有无药物治疗均可,旨在改变至少一种以上心血管危险因素(即饮食、降低血压、吸烟、总血胆固醇或增加身体活动),且在低收入和中等收入国家进行至少六个月的随访。
两位作者独立评估试验的入选资格和偏倚风险,并提取数据。我们使用风险比(RRs)合并二分数据,使用均值差(MDs)合并连续数据,并给出所有结果的95%置信区间(CI)。主要结局是致命和非致命心血管疾病事件合并。
13项试验符合纳入标准并纳入本综述。所有研究至少有一个领域的偏倚风险不明确。一些研究在随机序列生成(两项试验)、分配隐藏(两项试验)、结局评估者盲法(一项试验)和不完整结局数据(一项试验)方面存在高偏倚风险。多危险因素干预措施的持续时间和内容在各试验中有所不同。两项试验招募了健康参与者,其他11项试验招募了具有不同心血管疾病风险的人群,如已知高血压和2型糖尿病的参与者。只有一项研究报告了心血管疾病结局,多危险因素干预措施并未降低心血管事件的发生率(RR 0.57,95%CI 0.11至3.07,232名参与者,低质量证据);结果不精确(置信区间宽且样本量小),难以得出可靠结论。纳入的试验均未报告全因死亡率。汇总效应表明收缩压降低(MD -6.72 mmHg,95%CI -9.82至-3.61,I² = 91%,4868名参与者,低质量证据)、舒张压降低(MD -4.40 mmHg,95%CI -6.47至-2.34,I² = 92%,4701名参与者,低质量证据)、体重指数降低(MD -0.76 kg/m²,95%CI -1.29至-0.22,I² =80%,2984名参与者,低质量证据)和腰围降低(MD -3.31,95%CI -4.77至-1.86,I² = 55%,393名参与者,中等质量证据),支持多危险因素干预措施,但存在显著异质性。没有足够的证据确定这些干预措施对水果或蔬菜消费、戒烟、糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖、高密度脂蛋白(HDL)胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白(LDL)胆固醇和总胆固醇的影响。纳入的试验均未报告不良事件。
由于目前可用证据有限,我们无法就多危险因素干预措施对心血管疾病合并事件和死亡率的有效性得出结论。有一些证据表明,多危险因素干预措施可能会降低高血压和糖尿病高风险的低收入和中等收入国家人群的血压水平、体重指数和腰围。试验之间存在相当大的异质性,试验规模较小,且存在一定的偏倚风险。需要开展更大规模、随访期更长的研究来证实多危险因素干预措施是否能降低低收入和中等收入国家环境中心血管疾病事件和死亡率。