Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
PLoS Med. 2020 Jan 2;17(1):e1002997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002997. eCollection 2020 Jan.
New methods are required to manage hypertension in resource-poor settings. We hypothesised that a community health worker (CHW)-led group-based education and monitoring intervention would improve control of blood pressure (BP).
We conducted a baseline community-based survey followed by a cluster randomised controlled trial of people with hypertension in 3 rural regions of South India, each at differing stages of epidemiological transition. Participants with hypertension, defined as BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medication, were advised to visit a doctor. In each region, villages were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (UC) in a 1:2 ratio. In intervention clusters, trained CHWs delivered a group-based intervention to people with hypertension. The program, conducted fortnightly for 3 months, included monitoring of BP, education about hypertension, and support for healthy lifestyle change. Outcomes were assessed approximately 2 months after completion of the intervention. The primary outcome was control of BP (BP < 140/90 mm Hg), analysed using mixed effects regression, clustered by village within region and adjusted for baseline control of hypertension (using intention-to-treat principles). Of 2,382 potentially eligible people, 637 from 5 intervention clusters and 1,097 from 10 UC clusters were recruited between November 2015 and April 2016, with follow-up occurring in 459 in the intervention group and 1,012 in UC. Mean age was 56.9 years (SD 13.7). Baseline BP was similar between groups. Control of BP improved from baseline to follow-up more in the intervention group (from 227 [49.5%] to 320 [69.7%] individuals) than in the UC group (from 528 [52.2%] to 624 [61.7%] individuals) (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1; P = 0.001). In secondary outcome analyses, there was a greater decline in systolic BP in the intervention than UC group (-5.0 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.1 to -3.0; P < 0.001) and a greater decline in diastolic BP (-2.1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.6; P < 0.006), but no detectable difference in the use of BP-lowering medications between groups (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.9; P = 0.34). Similar results were found when using imputation analyses that included those lost to follow-up. Limitations include a relatively short follow-up period and use of outcome assessors who were not blinded to the group allocation.
While the durability of the effect is uncertain, this trial provides evidence that a low-cost program using CHWs to deliver an education and monitoring intervention is effective in controlling BP and is potentially scalable in resource-poor settings globally.
The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2016/02/006678).
在资源匮乏的环境中需要新的方法来管理高血压。我们假设,由社区卫生工作者(CHW)主导的基于群体的教育和监测干预措施将改善血压控制。
我们在印度南部的 3 个农村地区进行了一项基于社区的基线调查,随后对高血压患者进行了一项基于群组的随机对照试验,每个地区都处于不同的流行病学转变阶段。定义为血压≥140/90mmHg 或服用降压药物的高血压患者被建议去看医生。在每个地区,按照 1:2 的比例将村庄随机分配到干预组或常规护理(UC)组。在干预组中,受过培训的 CHW 向高血压患者提供基于群体的干预措施。该计划每两周进行一次,持续 3 个月,包括监测血压、高血压教育和支持健康生活方式的改变。大约在干预结束后 2 个月评估结果。主要结局是血压控制(BP<140/90mmHg),使用混合效应回归进行分析,按地区内的村庄聚类,并根据基线高血压控制情况进行调整(采用意向治疗原则)。在 2382 名潜在合格者中,共有 5 个干预组中的 637 人和 10 个 UC 组中的 1097 人在 2015 年 11 月至 2016 年 4 月之间被招募,在干预组中,有 459 人进行了随访,UC 组中有 1012 人进行了随访。平均年龄为 56.9 岁(SD 13.7)。基线血压在两组之间相似。与 UC 组相比,干预组的血压控制从基线到随访时有所改善(从 227(49.5%)到 320(69.7%))(比值比[OR]1.6,95%CI 1.2-2.1;P=0.001)。在次要结局分析中,干预组的收缩压下降幅度大于 UC 组(-5.0mmHg,95%CI-7.1 至-3.0;P<0.001),舒张压下降幅度大于 UC 组(-2.1mmHg,95%CI-3.6 至-0.6;P<0.006),但两组之间降压药物的使用没有明显差异(OR 1.2,95%CI 0.8-1.9;P=0.34)。当使用包括失访者在内的插补分析时,也得到了类似的结果。局限性包括随访时间相对较短,以及使用未对分组情况设盲的结局评估人员。
虽然其效果的持久性尚不确定,但该试验提供了证据表明,使用 CHW 提供教育和监测干预的低成本计划可有效控制血压,并且在全球资源匮乏的环境中具有潜在的可扩展性。
该试验在印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI/2016/02/006678)注册。