Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in rural and urban communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

IMPORTANCE: Hypertension is the most important preventable cause of morbidity and mortality globally, yet there are relatively few data collected using standardized methods. OBJECTIVE: To examine hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in participants at baseline in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional study of 153,996 adults (complete data for this analysis on 142,042) aged 35 to 70 years, recruited between January 2003 and December 2009. Participants were from 628 communities in 3 high-income countries (HIC), 10 upper-middle-income and low-middle-income countries (UMIC and LMIC), and 4 low-income countries (LIC). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hypertension was defined as individuals with self-reported treated hypertension or with an average of 2 blood pressure measurements of at least 140/90 mm Hg using an automated digital device. Awareness was based on self-reports, treatment was based on the regular use of blood pressure-lowering medications, and control was defined as individuals with blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg. RESULTS: Among the 142,042 participants, 57,840 (40.8%; 95% CI, 40.5%-41.0%) had hypertension and 26,877 (46.5%; 95% CI, 46.1%-46.9%) were aware of the diagnosis. Of those who were aware of the diagnosis, the majority (23,510 [87.5%; 95% CI, 87.1%-87.9%] of those who were aware) were receiving pharmacological treatments, but only a minority of those receiving treatment were controlled (7634 [32.5%; 95% CI, 31.9%-33.1%]). Overall, 30.8%, 95% CI, 30.2%-31.4% of treated patients were taking 2 or more types of blood pressure-lowering medications. The percentages aware (49.0% [95% CI, 47.8%-50.3%] in HICs, 52.5% [95% CI, 51.8%-53.2%] in UMICs, 43.6% [95% CI, 42.9%-44.2%] in LMICs, and 40.8% [95% CI, 39.9%-41.8%] in LICs) and treated (46.7% [95% CI, 45.5%-47.9%] in HICs, 48.3%, [95% CI, 47.6%-49.1%] in UMICs, 36.9%, [95% CI, 36.3%-37.6%] in LMICs, and 31.7% [95% CI, 30.8%-32.6%] in LICs) were lower in LICs compared with all other countries for awareness (P <.001) and treatment (P <.001). Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension were higher in urban communities compared with rural ones in LICs (urban vs rural, P <.001) and LMICs (urban vs rural, P <.001), but similar for other countries. Low education was associated with lower rates of awareness, treatment, and control in LICs, but not in other countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a multinational study population, 46.5% of participants with hypertension were aware of the diagnosis, with blood pressure control among 32.5% of those being treated. These findings suggest substantial room for improvement in hypertension diagnosis and treatment

Cardiovascular risk and events in 17 low-, middle-, and high-income countries

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of deaths from cardiovascular disease are estimated to occur in low-income and middle-income countries, but the reasons are unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 156,424 persons from 628 urban and rural communities in 17 countries (3 high-income, 10 middle-income, and 4 low-income countries) and assessed their cardiovascular risk using the INTERHEART Risk Score, a validated score for quantifying risk-factor burden without the use of laboratory testing (with higher scores indicating greater risk-factor burden). Participants were followed for incident cardiovascular disease and death for a mean of 4.1 years. RESULTS: The mean INTERHEART Risk Score was highest in high-income countries, intermediate in middle-income countries, and lowest in low-income countries (P<0.001). However, the rates of major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) were lower in high-income countries than in middle- and low-income countries (3.99 events per 1000 personyears vs. 5.38 and 6.43 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; P<0.001). Case fatality rates were also lowest in high-income countries (6.5%, 15.9%, and 17.3% in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, respectively; P = 0.01). Urban communities had a higher risk-factor burden than rural communities but lower rates of cardiovascular events (4.83 vs. 6.25 events per 1000 person-years, P<0.001) and case fatality rates (13.52% vs. 17.25%, P<0.001). The use of preventive medications and revascularization procedures was significantly more common in high-income countries than in middle- or low-income countries (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk-factor burden was lowest in low-income countries, the rates of major cardiovascular disease and death were substantially higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries. The high burden of risk factors in highincome countries may have been mitigated by better control of risk factors and more frequent use of proven pharmacologic therapies and revascularization. (Funded by the Population Health Research Institute and others.)IS

Household, community, sub-national and country-level predictors of primary cooking fuel switching in nine countries from the PURE study

Introduction. Switchingfrom polluting (e.g. wood, crop waste, coal)to clean (e.g. gas, electricity) cooking fuels can reduce household air pollution exposures and climate-forcing emissions.While studies have evaluated specific interventions and assessed fuel-switching in repeated cross-sectional surveys, the role of different multilevel factors in household fuel switching, outside of interventions and across diverse community settings, is not well understood. Methods.We examined longitudinal survey data from 24 172 households in 177 rural communities across nine countries within the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology study.We assessed household-level primary cooking fuel switching during a median of 10 years offollow up (∼2005–2015).We used hierarchical logistic regression models to examine the relative importance of household, community, sub-national and national-level factors contributing to primary fuel switching. Results. One-half of study households(12 369)reported changing their primary cookingfuels between baseline andfollow up surveys. Of these, 61% (7582) switchedfrom polluting (wood, dung, agricultural waste, charcoal, coal, kerosene)to clean (gas, electricity)fuels, 26% (3109)switched between different polluting fuels, 10% (1164)switched from clean to polluting fuels and 3% (522)switched between different clean fuels