The Emerging Authors Program (EAP) for Global Cardiovascular Disease Research is an opportunity for early and mid-career health trainees and practitioners from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to apply to receive scientific writing and publication mentorship from global cardiovascular disease experts. The EAP and this publication are a great example of advancing the Global Health Equity Agenda that the Center for Global Health is striving to achieve – particularly around reducing disparities in global health research and knowledge production in LMICs. In early 2021, a call for applications was announced for the EAP to expand the evidence-base cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, management, and control with the primary aim to build the scientific publication capacity in LMICs [1]. This program collaborates with the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group (LCOHG), Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Hypertension League (WHL). These organizations’ subject matter experts provide mentorship to selected authors helping them strengthen their scientific writing skills and navigate the writing and publication process.

Hypertension is one of the most important risk factors that contribute to incident cardiovascular events. A multitude of US and international hypertension guidelines, scientific statements, and policy statements have recommended evidence-based approaches for hypertension management and improved blood pressure (BP) control. These recommendations are based largely on high-quality observational and randomized controlled trial data. However, recent published data demonstrate troubling temporal trends with declining BP control in the United States after decades of steady improvements. Therefore, there is a widening disconnect between what hypertension experts recommend and actual BP control in practice. This scientific statement provides information on the implementation strategies to optimize hypertension management and to improve BP control among adults in the United States. Key approaches include antiracism efforts, accurate BP measurement and increased use of self-measured BP monitoring, team-based care, implementation of policies and programs to facilitate lifestyle change, standardized treatment protocols using team-based care, improvement of medication acceptance and adherence, continuous quality improvement, financial strategies, and large-scale dissemination and implementation. Closing the gap between scientific evidence, expert recommendations, and achieving BP control, particularly among disproportionately affected populations, is urgently needed to improve cardiovascular health.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD), principally ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, are the leading causes of death (18. 6 million deaths annually) and disability (393 million disability-adjusted life-years lost annually), worldwide. High blood pressure is the most important preventable risk factor for CVD and deaths, worldwide (10.8 million deaths annually). In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) launched the Global Hearts initiative to support governments in their quest to prevent and control CVD. HEARTS is the core technical package of the initiative and takes a public health approach to treating hypertension and other CVD risk factors at the primary health care level. The HEARTS Partner Forum, led by WHO, brings together the following 11 partner organizations: American Heart Association (AHA), Center for Chronic Disease Control (CCDC), International Society of Hypertension (ISH), International Society of Nephrology (ISN), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL), US CDC, World Hypertension League (WHL), World Heart Federation (WHF) and World Stroke Organization (WSO). The partners support countries in their implementation of the HEARTS technical package in various ways, including providing technical expertise, catalytic funding, capacity building and evidence generation and dissemination. HEARTS has demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of a public health approach, with more than seven million people already on treatment for hypertension using a simple, algorithmic HEARTS approach. Additionally, HEARTS has demonstrated the feasibility of using hypertension as a pathfinder to universal health coverage and should be a key intervention of all basic benefit packages. The partner forum continues to find ways to expand support and reinvigorate enthusiasm and attention on preventing CVD. Proposed future HEARTS Partner Forum activities are related to more concrete information sharing between partners and among countries, expanded areas of partner synergy, support for implementation, capacity building, and advocacy with country ministries of health, professional societies, academy and civil societies organizations. Advancing toward the shared goals of the HEARTS partners will require a more formal, structured approach to the forum and include goals, targets and published reports. In this way, the HEARTS Partner Forum will mirror successful global partnerships on communicable diseases and assist countries in reducing CVD mortality and achieving global sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Locally led health research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to overcome global health challenges because local researchers are knowledgeable about relevant health problems and understand the cultural, social, economic, and political contexts that influence patterns of disease and the effectiveness of interventions [1]. However, health research capacity in LMICs remains limited [2]. Therefore, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group, Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL), and the World Hypertension League (WHL) came together with a shared goal of increasing opportunities for LMIC researchers to systematically evaluate cardiovascular disease initiatives and share their results with the scientific community through publication in the peer reviewed literature [3].

Locally led health research in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) is critical to overcome global health challenges. Local researchers are knowledgeable about health problems and understand the cultural, social, economic, and political contexts that influence patterns of disease and the effectiveness of interventions. 1 The impact of locally led research studies and their potential contribution to the literature cannot be overstated; yet, health research capacity in LMICs remains limited. 2 Most health researchers from low‐resource settings face many challenges beyond those of researchers in well‐resourced settings. Barriers for potential investigators range from lack of funding and mentorship to inadequate access to scientific literature, limited institutional support, slow Internet speed, and limited English language proficiency. 3

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group, Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL), and the World Hypertension League (WHL) share a collective goal of expanding the evidence base on hypertension, sodium, and trans fatty acid reduction strategies as a critical pathway to preventing and managing cardiovascular diseases. An important strategy for achieving this goal is to increase opportunities for investigators in low‐ and middle‐income countries to contribute their studies in these areas to the scientific literature.

The International Consortium for Quality Research on Dietary Sodium/Salt (TRUE) is a coalition of intentional and national health and scientific organizations formed because of concerns low-quality research methods were creating controversy regarding dietary salt reduction. One of the main sources of controversy is believed related to errors in estimating sodium intake with urine studies. The recommendations and positions in this manuscript were generated following a series of systematic reviews and analyses by experts in hypertension, nutrition, statistics, and dietary sodium. To assess the population's current 24-hour dietary sodium ingestion, single complete 24-hour urine samples, collected over a series of days from a representative population sample, were recommended. To accurately estimate usual dietary sodium at the individual level, at least 3 non-consecutive complete 24-hour urine collections obtained over a series of days that reflect the usual short-term variations in dietary pattern were recommended. Multiple 24-hour urine collections over several years were recommended to estimate an individual's usual long-term sodium intake. The role of single spot or short duration timed urine collections in assessing population average sodium intake requires more research. Single or multiple spot or short duration timed urine collections are not recommended for assessing an individual's sodium intake especially in relationship to health outcomes. The recommendations should be applied by scientific review committees, granting agencies, editors and journal reviewers, investigators, policymakers, and those developing and creating dietary sodium recommendations. Low-quality research on dietary sodium/salt should not be funded, conducted, or published.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy? METHODS: Electronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS: Our results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mm Hg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (i.e., angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy? METHODS: Electronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS: Our results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mm Hg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (i.e., angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.

CONTEXT: The health and economic burden of hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is substantial. This systematic review evaluated the economic evidence of self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring interventions to control hypertension. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The literature search from database inception to March 2015 identified 22 studies for inclusion with three types of interventions: SMBP used alone, SMBP with additional support, and SMBP within team-based care (TBC). Two formulae were used to convert reductions in systolic BP (SBP) to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to produce cost per QALY saved. All analyses were conducted in 2015, with estimates adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Median costs of intervention were $60 and $174 per person for SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support, respectively, and $732 per person per year for SMBP within TBC. SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support reduced healthcare cost per person per year from outpatient visits and medication (medians $148 and $3, respectively; median follow-up, 12-13 months). SMBP within TBC exhibited an increase in healthcare cost (median, $369 per person per year; median follow-up, 18 months). SMBP alone varied from cost saving to a maximum cost of $144,000 per QALY saved, with two studies reporting an increase in SBP. The two translated median costs per QALY saved were $2,800 and $4,000 for SMBP with additional support and $7,500 and $10,800 for SMBP within TBC. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP monitoring interventions with additional support or within TBC are cost effective. Cost effectiveness of SMBP used alone could not be determined.

The ability to reliably evaluate the impact of interventions and changes in hypertension prevalence and control is critical if the burden of hypertension-related disease is to be reduced. Previously, a World Hypertension League Expert Committee made recommendations to standardize the reporting of population blood pressure surveys. We have added to those recommendations and also provide modified recommendations from a Pan American Health Organization expert meeting for "performance indicators" to be used to evaluate clinical practices. Core indicators for population surveys are recommended to include: (1) mean systolic blood pressure and (2) mean diastolic blood pressure, and the prevalences of: (3) hypertension, (4) awareness of hypertension, (5) drug-treated hypertension, and (6) drug-treated and controlled hypertension. Core indicators for clinical registries are recommended to include: (1) the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension and (2) the ratio of diagnosed hypertension to that expected by population surveys, and the prevalences of: (3) controlled hypertension, (4) lack of blood pressure measurement within a year in people diagnosed with hypertension, and (5) missed visits by people with hypertension. Definitions and additional indicators are provided. Widespread adoption of standardized population and clinical hypertension performance indicators could represent a major step forward in the effort to control hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension and hyperlipidemia are major cardiovascular disease risk factors. To modify them, patients often need to adopt healthier lifestyles and adhere to prescribed medications. However, patients' adherence to recommended treatments has been suboptimal. Reducing out-of-pocket costs (ROPC) to patients may improve medication adherence and consequently improve health outcomes. This Community Guide systematic review examined the effectiveness of ROPC for medications prescribed for patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. METHODS: We assessed effectiveness and economics of ROPC for medications to treat hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or both. Per Community Guide review methods, reviewers identified, evaluated, and summarized available evidence published from January 1980 through July 2015. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the analysis. ROPC interventions resulted in increased medication adherence for patients taking blood pressure and cholesterol medications by a median of 3.0 percentage points; proportion achieving 80% adherence to medication increased by 5.1 percentage points. Blood pressure and cholesterol outcomes also improved. Nine studies were included in the economic review, with a median intervention cost of $172 per person per year and a median change in health care cost of -$127 per person per year. CONCLUSION: ROPC for medications to treat hypertension and hyperlipidemia is effective in increasing medication adherence, and, thus, improving blood pressure and cholesterol outcomes. Most ROPC interventions are implemented in combination with evidence-based health care interventions such as team-based care with medication counseling. An overall conclusion about the economics of the intervention could not be reached with the small body of inconsistent cost-benefit evidence.

CONTEXT: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can help clinicians assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and manage CVD risk factors by providing tailored assessments and treatment recommendations based on individual patient data. The goal of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of CDSSs in improving screening for CVD risk factors, practices for CVD-related preventive care services such as clinical tests and prescribed treatments, and management of CVD risk factors. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An existing systematic review (search period, January 1975-January 2011) of CDSSs for any condition was initially identified. Studies of CDSSs that focused on CVD prevention in that review were combined with studies identified through an updated search (January 2011-October 2012). Data analysis was conducted in 2013. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 45 studies qualified for inclusion in the review. Improvements were seen for recommended screening and other preventive care services completed by clinicians, recommended clinical tests completed by clinicians, and recommended treatments prescribed by clinicians (median increases of 3.8, 4.0, and 2.0 percentage points, respectively). Results were inconsistent for changes in CVD risk factors such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1C levels. CONCLUSIONS: CDSSs are effective in improving clinician practices related to screening and other preventive care services, clinical tests, and treatments. However, more evidence is needed from implementation of CDSSs within the broad context of comprehensive service delivery aimed at reducing CVD risk and CVD-related morbidity and mortality.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a critical resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best available national data on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease–related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, use of medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document. Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2012 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈3500 times (data from Google Scholar). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. | | For this year’s edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year’s edition includes a new chapter on peripheral artery disease, as well as new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA’s 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year’s Update.

CONTEXT: Uncontrolled hypertension remains a widely prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in the U.S. team-based care, established by adding new staff or changing the roles of existing staff such as nurses and pharmacists to work with a primary care provider and the patient. Team-based care has the potential to improve the quality of hypertension management. The goal of this Community Guide systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure (BP) outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An existing systematic review (search period, January 1980-July 2003) assessing team-based care for BP control was supplemented with a Community Guide update (January 2003-May 2012). For the Community Guide update, two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality of eligible studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight studies in the prior review (1980-2003) and an additional 52 studies from the Community Guide update (2003-2012) qualified for inclusion. Results from both bodies of evidence suggest that team-based care is effective in improving BP outcomes. From the update, the proportion of patients with controlled BP improved (median increase=12 percentage points); systolic BP decreased (median reduction=5.4 mmHg); and diastolic BP also decreased (median reduction=1.8 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care increased the proportion of people with controlled BP and reduced both systolic and diastolic BP, especially when pharmacists and nurses were part of the team. Findings are applicable to a range of U.S. settings and population groups. Implementation of this multidisciplinary approach will require health system-level organizational changes and could be an important element of the medical home.

Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best national data available on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease–related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document. Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2011 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈1500 times (data from ISI Web of Science). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. | For this year’s edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year’s edition also implements a new chapter organization to reflect the spectrum of cardiovascular health behaviors and health factors and risks, as well as subsequent complicating conditions, disease states, and outcomes. Also, the 2013 Statistical Update contains new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA’s 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year’s Update.