Assessing descriptions of scalability for hypertension control interventions implemented in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of hypertension continues to rise in low- and middle-income- countries (LMICs) where scalable, evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are designed to reduce morbidity and mortality attributed to hypertension have yet to be fully adopted or disseminated. We sought to evaluate evidence from published randomized controlled trials using EBIs for hypertension control implemented in LMICs, and identify the WHO/ExpandNet scale-up components that are relevant for consideration during "scale-up" implementation planning. METHODS: Systematic review of RCTs reporting EBIs for hypertension control implemented in LMICs that stated "scale-up" or a variation of scale-up; using the following data sources PubMed/Medline, Web of Science Biosis Citation Index (BCI), CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, Google Scholar, PsycINFO; the grey literature and clinicaltrials.gov from inception through June 2021 without any restrictions on publication date. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, conducted data extraction using the WHO/ExpandNet Scale-up components as a guide and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We provide intervention characteristics for each EBI, BP results, and other relevant scale-up descriptions. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs were identified and reviewed. Studies reported clinically significant differences in BP, with 23 studies reporting statistically significant mean differences in BP (p < .05) following implementation. Only six studies provided descriptions that captured all of the nine WHO/ExpandNet components. Multi-component interventions, including drug therapy and health education, provided the most benefit to participants. The studies were yet to be scaled and we observed limited reporting on translation of the interventions into existing institutional policy (n = 11), cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 2), and sustainability measurements (n = 3). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the limited data on intervention scalability for hypertension control in LMICs and demonstrates the need for better scale-up metrics and processes for this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration PROSPERO (CRD42019117750).

Disparities in allostatic load, telomere length and chronic stress burden among African American adults: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The chronic disease burden among African Americans has continued to rise. Although racial disparities in chronic disease risk are well documented, the role of chronic stress in risk disparities among racial and ethnic minorities is not well understood. This systematic review of studies reporting on the relationship between chronic stress, education, and/or income, and biomarkers of chronic stress (allostatic load and telomere length) longitudinally among African Americans, seeks to contribute to this knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: To use the existing literature to both examine the strength of two objective biomarkers--telomere length and allostatic load--as measures of the overactivation of physiological stress processes in African American adults; and determine if existing studies used these two biomarkers to assess the relationship between chronic stress, income and level of educational attainment among African Americans longitudinally. METHODS: In order to identify English-language articles published prior to October 11, 2021, a comprehensive search strategy was developed using five databases: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science Plus, Global Health (Ovid), and PsycINFO. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to record progress on the comprehensive search for studies reporting on allostatic load and/or telomere length biomarkers longitudinally within all bodily fluids and chronic stress among African American adults. RESULTS: In total, 7 studies met the search criteria; 902 were excluded. Thus, less than 1% of all studies reporting on biomarkers of chronic stress longitudinally included African Americans. Each of the 7 studies described the relationship between telomere length and/or allostatic load among African Americans and chronic stress, education, and/or income. Higher chronic stress levels and experiences of racial discrimination were associated with telomere shortening while lower income and higher chronic stress levels were associated with an increase in allostatic load among African Americans. DISCUSSION: Given the limited number of studies reporting on the association between allostatic load, telomere length, and/or the relationship between both in assessing chronic stress severity longitudinally among African American populations, it is impossible to determine whether one biomarker has greater predictive value than the other. However, based on the literature included in this review, higher chronic stress levels and experiences of racial discrimination were associated with shorter telomere length, while lower income and higher chronic stress levels are associated with an increase in allostatic load among African Americans. CONCLUSION: These data illustrate a gap in the literature on the relationship between the biomarkers of telomere length and allostatic load combined as a potential measure for chronic stress among African Americans. To our knowledge, none the current literature describes the relationship between telomere length and allostatic load longitudinally among African American adults. As the field strives to develop a "gold standard" for measuring chronic stress, the combination of these biomarkers needs to be the subject of scientific inquiry and thus, fully examined. Future longitudinal studies among African Americans are needed to better understand which biomarker, or combination of biomarkers will provide the most accurate measure of physiological stress processes.