Search

Background: Markers of ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) predict cardiovascular events. We estimated the prevalence of ideal CVH markers in two levels of cities and villages in India., Methods: We did pooled analysis of individual-level data from three cross sectional surveys of adults ≥ 30 years over 2010-14 (CARRS: Centre for cArdiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia; UDAY and Solan Surveillance Study) representing metropolitan cities; smaller cities and rural areas in diverse locations of India. We defined ideal CVH using modified American Heart Association recommendations: not smoking, ≥ 5 servings of fruits and vegetables (F&V), high physical activity (PA), body mass index (BMI) <25 Kg/m 2 , blood pressure (BP) <120/80 mm Hg, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <100 mg/dl, and total cholesterol (TC) <200 mg/dL. We estimated (1) age-and sex-standardized prevalence of ideal CVH and (2) prevalence of good (≥6 markers), moderate (4-5), and poor CVH (≤3) adjusted for age, sex, education, and stratified by setting and asset tertiles., Results: Of the total 22,144 participants, the prevalence of ideal CVH markers were: not smoking (76.7% [95% CI 76.1, 77.2]), consumed ≥5 F&V (4.2% [3.9, 4.5]), high PA (67.5% [66.8, 68.2]), optimum BMI (59.6% [58.9, 60.3]), ideal BP (34.5% [33.9, 35.2]), FPG (65.8% [65.1, 66.5]) and TC (65.4% [64.7, 66.1]). The mean number of ideal CVH metrics was 3.7(95% CI: 3.7, 3.8). Adjusted prevalence of good, moderate, and poor CVH, varied across settings: metropolitan (3.9%, 41.0%, and 55.1%), smaller cities (7.8%, 49.2%, and 43%), and rural (10.4%, 60.9%, and 28.7%) and across asset tertiles: Low (11.0%, 55.9%, 33.1%), Middle (6.3%, 52.2%, 41.5%), and High (5.0%, 46.4%, 48.7%), respectively., Conclusion: Achievement of ideal CVH varied, with higher prevalence in rural and lower asset tertiles. Multi-sectoral and targeted policy and program actions are needed to improve CVH in diverse contexts in India., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s).)

Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health-a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical-not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Almost three-quarters (74%) of all the noncommunicable disease burden is found within low- and middle-income countries. In September 2014, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute held a Global Health Think Tank meeting to obtain expert advice and recommendations for addressing compelling scientific questions for late stage (T4) research-research that studies implementation strategies for proven effective interventions-to inform and guide the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's global health research and training efforts. Major themes emerged in two broad categories: 1) developing research capacity; and 2) efficiently defining compelling scientific questions within the local context. Compelling scientific questions included how to deliver inexpensive, scalable, and sustainable interventions using alternative health delivery models that leverage existing human capital, technologies and therapeutics, and entrepreneurial strategies. These broad themes provide perspectives that inform an overarching strategy needed to reduce the heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders disease burden and global health disparities., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)