Search

Summary Background Rapid population growth in Africa requires an urgent expansion and improvement of housing options. Improving housing presents a promising opportunity for malaria control by reducing indoor exposure to mosquitoes. We measured recent changes in house design in rural Uganda and evaluated their association with malaria in relation to a mass scale-up of control efforts. Methods This analysis was part of a cohort study designed to compare temporal changes in malaria incidence from a cohort of children and adults with temporal changes in malaria test positivity rate from health facility surveillance. All children aged 6 months to 10 years (n=384) living in 107 households in Nagongera sub-country, Tororo, Uganda, were given long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and followed between Aug 19, 2011, and June 30, 2017. Repeat rounds of indoor residual spraying of insecticide were initiated on Dec 5, 2014. Socioeconomic data were collected at two timepoints (Sept 25–Oct 9, 2013 and June 21–July 11, 2016) and houses were classified as modern (cement, wood, or metal walls, tiled or metal roof, and closed eaves) or traditional (all other homes). Associations between house design and three outcomes were evaluated before and after the introduction of indoor residual spraying: human biting rate estimated monthly in each household using US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention light traps; parasite prevalence measured routinely by microscopy every 3 months before indoor residual spraying and monthly after indoor residual spraying; and malaria incidence measured by passive surveillance. Findings The implementation of indoor residual spraying was associated with significant declines in human biting rate (33·5 vs 2·7 Anopheles per house per night after indoor residual spraying, p

Background:\ud \ud People of Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asians(SA) ethnic minorities living in Europe have higher risk of stroke than native Europeans(EU). Study objective is to provide an assessment of gender specific absolute differences in office systolic(SBP) and diastolic(DBP) blood pressure(BP) levels between SSA, SA, and EU.\ud \ud Methods and Findings:\ud \ud We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies conducted in Europe that examined BP in non-selected adult SSA, SA and EU subjects. Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from their inception through January 31st 2015, for relevant articles. Outcome measures were mean SBP and DBP differences between minorities and EU, using a random effects model and tested for heterogeneity. Twenty-one studies involving 9,070 SSA, 18,421 SA, and 130,380 EU were included. Compared with EU, SSA had higher values of both SBP (3.38 mmHg, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.48 mmHg; and 6.00 mmHg, 95% CI 2.22 to 9.78 in men and women respectively) and DBP (3.29 mmHg, 95% CI 1.80 to 4.78; 5.35 mmHg, 95% CI 3.04 to 7.66). SA had lower SBP than EU(-4.57 mmHg, 95% CI -6.20 to -2.93; -2.97 mmHg, 95% CI -5.45 to -0.49) but similar DBP values. Meta-analysis by subgroup showed that SA originating from countries where Islam is the main religion had lower SBP and DBP values than EU. In multivariate meta-regression analyses, SBP difference between minorities and EU populations, was influenced by panethnicity and diabetes prevalence.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud \ud 1) The higher BP in SSA is maintained over decades, suggesting limited efficacy of prevention strategies in such group in Europe;2) The lower BP in Muslim populations suggests that yet untapped lifestyle and behavioral habits may reveal advantages towards the development of hypertension;3) The additive effect of diabetes, emphasizes the need of new strategies for the control of hypertension in groups at high prevalence of diabetes.

Background: Guidelines on hypertension regard combinations between two antihypertensive drugs to be the most important treatment strategy. Because of the complementary mechanism of action and the evidence of cardiovascular protective effects they include the combination of a calcium antagonist and an angiotensin receptor antagonist among the priorital ones to employ. Aims: To determine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk whether combining Nifedipine GITS at low dose and telmisartan reduced ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) more than the combination components, controlled BP early after treatment initiation and allowed to also obtain a better long-term BP control compared to initiating treatment with the combination components and moving to the combination later. Methods: Four hundred and five patients with a clinic SBP 135 mmHg and with diabetes, a metabolic syndrome or organ damage were randomized to once-a-day telmisartan 80 mg, nifedipine GITS 20 mg or the combination of the two drugs in a 1: 1: 2 ratio for 8 weeks in the context of a multicenter double-blind study design. Patients on monotherapy were then moved to combination treatment and all three groups were followed for an additional 16-week period. Both 24-h and clinic BP were measured before treatment and at various times during treatment. Results: In the per-protocol patients (n = 327), baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the three groups. Baseline 24-h SBP values were 136.2 ± 11.6 mmHg (mean ± SD), 137.2 ± 12.5 mmHg and 136.8 ± 11.7 mmHg in the telmisartan monotherapy, nifedipine GITS monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. The corresponding clinic values were 151.7 ± 11.8, 151.3 ± 11.9 and 151.1 ± 11.8 mmHg, respectively. All treatments lowered 24-h SBP significantly (P < 0.0001) but combination treatment (8 weeks) reduced it significantly more than monotherapies (10.8 ± 0.8 vs. 6.6 ± 1.1 mmHg and 8.0 ± 1.2 mmHg; P = 0.001 and 0.037). Similar data were obtained for clinic SBP for which the combination showed a significantly greater BP reduction (12.6 ± 0.6 vs. 8.6 ± 0.7 mmHg and 9.3 ± 0.8 mmHg; P = 0.003 and 0.024) also after 2 weeks of treatment. Moving from monotherapy to combination therapy increased the antihypertensive effect and made both ambulatory and clinic SBP superimposable in the three groups after 16 and 24 weeks of treatment. Similar findings were obtained for DBP. Conclusion: Combination treatment with nifedipine GITS low dose and telmisartan provides a greater and earlier clinic and ambulatory BP reduction than the combination components in monotherapy. Initiating treatment with the combination did not result in any better longer term BP control compared to starting treatment with monotherapy and moving to the combination later.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 confirms ischemic heart disease and stroke as the leading cause of death and that hypertension is the main associated risk factor worldwide. How best to respond to the rising prevalence of hypertension in resource-deprived settings is a topic of ongoing public-health debate and discussion. In low-income and middle-income countries, socioeconomic inequality and cultural factors play a role both in the development of risk factors and in the access to care. In Europe, cultural barriers and poor communication between health systems and migrants may limit migrants from receiving appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. To use more efficiently resources available and to make treatment cost-effective at the patient level, cardiovascular risk approach is now recommended. In 2011, The European Society of Hypertension established a Working Group on 'Hypertension and Cardiovascular risk in low resource settings', which brought together cardiologists, diabetologists, nephrologists, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, economists, and other stakeholders to review current strategies for cardiovascular risk assessment in population studies in low-income and middle-income countries, their limitations, possible improvements, and future interests in screening programs. This report summarizes current evidence and presents highlights of unmet needs.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in Western countries and is highly prevalent in patients with kidney disease. Traditional risk factors for CVD often accompany kidney dysfunction, and chronic kidney disease per se is considered an additional risk factor. Risk stratification for CVD remains suboptimal even after the introduction of global risk assessment by various scores. This has prompted the search for novel markers of cardiovascular risk, and several biomarkers have been suggested as candidates, together with C-reactive protein (CRP). The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between novel biomarkers of vascular inflammation (soluble form of the receptor for advanced glycation end products [sRAGE] and eotaxin-3) with CRP in a population of hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. Methods: Plasma sRAGE, high-sensitivity CRP (hs- CRP) and eotaxin-3 were measured in 399 hypertensive patients (265 men, mean age 58 ± 8 years)with diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome or organ damage. Results: Plasma concentrations of sRAGE, eotaxin-3 and hs-CRP were not different between diabetic and nondiabetic subjects. Univariate analysis showed that plasma levels of sRAGE and eotaxin-3 were not associated with hs-CRP in either subgroup. Conclusion: Our study confirms the robust and widely studied role of CRP as an important marker of vascular inflammation. We also postulate the possible involvement of sRAGE and eotaxin, 2 novel biomarkers, in CVDs. On the basis of our results, we can put forward the hypotheses that hs-CRP, s-RAGE and eotaxin are reliable but unrelated cardiovascular risk markers. © 2012 Società Italiana di Nefrologia - ISSN 1121-8428.

The management of high blood pressure (BP) is particularly inadequate in low-income countries, where the unavailability of a reliable, durable, and affordable BP-measurement device is a major obstacle to accurate diagnosis. Recognizing this, a World Health Organization committee was established to correct this deficiency by influencing manufacturers to produce a device according to predetermined criteria and to demonstrate the suitability of the device for low resource settings. A device, which fulfilled stipulated criteria in being inexpensive, semiautomated, and solar powered, was validated according to the International Protocol of the European Society of Hypertension; it was then subjected to field testing in 716 subjects from 2 centers in Uganda and 1 in Zambia. The Omron HEM-SOLAR having previously fulfilled accuracy criteria of the International Protocol for both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), fulfilled criteria for SBP, but not for DBP, when revalidated. In field testing, average SBPs and DBPs were 120.5±21.6/74.6±13.8 mm Hg and 122.3±21.8/71.2±14.0 mm Hg, respectively, with the auscultatory technique and the Omron HEM-SOLAR, respectively. Between-device agreement in defining SBP was 93.7%. The Omron HEM-SOLAR was favored over the mercury sphygmomanometer by both patients and investigators. In summary, considering the accuracy, robustness, relatively low cost, operational simplicity, and advantages such as solar power, the Omron HEM-SOLAR is likely to be a valuable device for improving BP measurement in low-resource settings with nonphysician health workers.