Search

Evidence to date suggests that high sodium intake affects health adversely, yet the role of a population-level strategy to reduce sodium intake is often contested. This review focuses on current available evidence on regional sodium intake levels, health implications of sodium intake, and population-level strategies implemented worldwide. The limitations in evidence, the difficulties in implementing population-wide strategies to reduce sodium intake, and the need for such strategies are critically reviewed. Evidence clearly shows that sodium has an adverse effect on blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and mortality. However, whether reduced sodium intake benefits all individuals or only hypertensive individuals is still unclear. Methodological issues and publication bias in current evidence are other matters of concern in sodium-related research. While it is essential to continue working toward the World Health Organization's target of 30% reduction in sodium intake, due consideration should be given to improving the quality of research, reducing bias in publications, and reviewing evidence more critically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scientific evidence indicates that high dietary salt intake has detrimental effects on blood pressure and associated cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, limited information is available on how to implement salt reduction in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India, where the burden of hypertension and CVD is increasing rapidly. As part of a large study to create the evidence base required to develop a salt reduction strategy for India, we assessed the perspectives of various stakeholders regarding developing an India specific salt reduction strategy. Methods: A qualitative research design was deployed to elicit various stakeholder’s (government and policy-related stakeholders, industry, civil Society, consumers) perspectives on a salt reduction strategy for India, using in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). We used an inductive approach for data analysis. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis method. Results: Forty-two IDIs and eight FGDs were conducted with various stakeholders of interest and relevance. Analysis indicated three major themes: 1. Barriers for salt reduction 2. Facilitators for salt reduction; 3. Strategies for salt reduction. Most of the stakeholders were in alignment with the need for a salt reduction programme in India to prevent and control hypertension and related CVD. Major barriers indicated by the stakeholders for salt reduction in India were social and cultural beliefs, a large unorganized food retail sector, and the lack of proper implementation of even existing food policies. Stakeholders from the food industry reported that there might be decreased sales due to salt reduction. Major facilitators included the fact that: salt reduction is currently a part of the National Multi-Sectoral Action Plan for the prevention and control of NCDs, salt reduction and salt iodine programme are compatible, and that few of the multinational food companies have already started working in the direction of initiating efforts for salt reduction. Based on the barriers and facilitators, few of the recommendations are to generate awareness among consumers, promote salt reduction by processed food industry, and implement consumer friendly food labelling. Conclusions: In this study of multiple key influential stakeholders in India, most of the stakeholders were in alignment with the need for a salt reduction programme in India to prevent and control hypertension and related CVD. The development and adoption of the National Multi-sectoral Action Plan to reduce premature non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in India, provides a potential platform that can be leveraged to drive, implement and monitor salt reduction efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While data from the latter part of the twentieth century consistently showed that immigrants to high-income countries faced higher cardio-metabolic risk than their counterparts in low- and middle-income countries, urbanization and associated lifestyle changes may be changing these patterns, even for conditions considered to be advanced manifestations of cardio-metabolic disease (e.g., chronic kidney disease [CKD]). Methods and findings: Using cross-sectional data from the Center for cArdiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS, n = 5294) and Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA, n = 748) studies, we investigated whether prevalence of CKD is similar among Indians living in Indian and U.S. cities. We compared crude, age-, waist-to-height ratio-, and diabetes- adjusted CKD prevalence difference. Among participants identified to have CKD, we compared management of risk factors for its progression. Overall age-adjusted prevalence of CKD was similar in MASALA (14.0% [95% CI 11.8–16.3]) compared with CARRS (10.8% [95% CI 10.0–11.6]). Among men the prevalence difference was low (prevalence difference 1.8 [95% CI -1.6,5.3]) and remained low after adjustment for age, waist-to-height ratio, and diabetes status (-0.4 [-3.2,2.5]). Adjusted prevalence difference was higher among women (prevalence difference 8.9 [4.8,12.9]), but driven entirely by a higher prevalence of albuminuria among women in MASALA. Severity of CKD—-i.e., degree of albuminuria and proportion of participants with reduced glomerular filtration fraction-—was higher in CARRS for both men and women. Fewer participants with CKD in CARRS were effectively treated. 4% of CARRS versus 51% of MASALA participants with CKD had A1c < 7%; and 7% of CARRS versus 59% of MASALA participants blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg. Our analysis applies only to urban populations. Demographic—-particularly educational attainment—-differences among participants in the two studies are a potential source of bias. Conclusions: Prevalence of CKD among Indians living in Indian and U.S. cities is similar. Persons with CKD living in Indian cities face higher likelihood of experiencing end-stage renal disease since they have more severe kidney disease and little evidence of risk factor management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]