Dataset Information

A semi-systematic review on hypertension and dyslipidemia care in Egypt-highlighting evidence gaps and recommendations for better patient outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Both hypertension and dyslipidemia are considered as major modifiable risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and their prevalence in Egypt has increased in recent years. Evidence-based systematic evaluation of data on hypertension and dyslipidemia is critical for effective patient-centric management to reduce the overall risk of CVDs in Egypt. This semi-systematic review aimed to quantify and identify data gaps in the prevalence and distribution of patient journey touchpoints including awareness, screening, diagnosis, treatment, adherence, and control of hypertension and dyslipidemia to provide the basis for research prioritization, practice guidance, and health care reforms in Egypt.

Main body

Structured search was conducted on MEDLINE and Embase to identify articles published in English between January 2010 and December 2019 that reported key patient journey touchpoints in hypertension and dyslipidemia management. Unstructured search was conducted on public or government websites with no date restriction. Data from all sources were extracted and presented descriptively. In total, 22 studies published between 1995 and 2020 on hypertension and dyslipidemia were included in the final analyses. The prevalence of hypertension in Egypt ranged from 12.1 to 59%. Studies reported awareness (37.5% and 43.9%), diagnosis (42% and 64.7%), treatment (24% and 54.1%), and adherence to antihypertensive medication (51.9%) to be low. Furthermore, the percentage of patients who had their blood pressure controlled ranged from 8 to 53.2%. The prevalence of dyslipidemia varied in the general population (range 19.2-36.8%) but was higher in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (50.9% and 52.5%) and coronary artery disease (58.7%). A national report indicated that 8.6% of the general population was screened for dyslipidemia; however, no data was available on the diagnosis and treatment rates. Among ACS patients, 73.9% were treated for dyslipidemia. Data indicated low levels of medication adherence (59%) among dyslipidemia patients, with overall low control rates ranging from 5.1 to 34.4% depending on CVD risk in populations including ACS patients.

Conclusion

Data on patient journey touchpoints of hypertension and dyslipidemia are limited in Egypt, indicating the need for more systematic and high-quality evidence-based studies covering different aspects of patient-centric management for better management of CVD and its risk factors.

SUBMITTER: Reda A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8634749 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals may experience a range of symptoms after the clearance of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This condition is termed long COVID (LC) or Post-COVID-19 condition (PCC). Despite the appreciable number of symptoms documented to date, one key challenge remains in the robust characterization of LC outcomes. This review aimed to assess the properties, identify gaps, and provide recommendations for relevant descriptive and evaluative Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement (PROM) instruments that can be used to comprehensively characterize LC.MethodsTo achieve this objective, we identified and reviewed descriptive and evaluative PROM instruments that have been developed and validated to date with people living with LC. Our review assessed their properties, identified gaps, and recommended PROMs suitable for characterizing LC. To ensure a comprehensive and robust characterization of LC, we next identified, reviewed, and selected (with the input of patient partners) PROMs associated with the most frequently reported LC symptoms. The evaluation criteria included psychometric evidence, mode of delivery, cost, and administration time.ResultsTraditional matrix mapping revealed Post-COVID Functional Status Scale (PCFS) as a choice instrument for capturing LC outcomes largely because of the comprehensive domains it covered, and the number of psychometric evidence reported in literatures. This instrument can be effectively paired with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Headache Impact Test (HIT), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ-PEM) to characterize fatigue, cognitive impairment, depression/anxiety, headache, sleeplessness, and post-exertional malaise respectively.ConclusionOur paper identified appropriate PROM instruments that can effectively capture the diverse impacts of LC. By utilizing these validated instruments, we can better understand and manage LC.

Project description:IntroductionWe sought to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prehospital evaluation and treatment of adult and pediatric patients with a seizure and to compare these recommendations against the current protocol used by the 33 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies in California.MethodsWe performed a review of the evidence in the prehospital treatment of patients with a seizure, and then compared the seizure protocols of each of the 33 EMS agencies for consistency with these recommendations. We analyzed the type and route of medication administered, number of additional rescue doses permitted, and requirements for glucose testing prior to medication. The treatment for eclampsia and seizures in pediatric patients were analyzed separately.ResultsProtocols across EMS Agencies in California varied widely. We identified multiple drugs, dosages, routes of administration, re-dosing instructions, and requirement for blood glucose testing prior to medication delivery. Blood glucose testing prior to benzodiazepine administration is required by 61% (20/33) of agencies for adult patients and 76% (25/33) for pediatric patients. All agencies have protocols for giving intramuscular benzodiazepines and 76% (25/33) have protocols for intranasal benzodiazepines. Intramuscular midazolam dosages ranged from 2 to 10 mg per single adult dose, 2 to 8 mg per single pediatric dose, and 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg as a weight-based dose. Intranasal midazolam dosages ranged from 2 to 10 mg per single adult or pediatric dose, and 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg as a weight-based dose. Intravenous/intrasosseous midazolam dosages ranged from 1 to 6 mg per single adult dose, 1 to 5 mg per single pediatric dose, and 0.05 to 0.1 mg/kg as a weight-based dose. Eclampsia is specifically addressed by 85% (28/33) of agencies. Forty-two percent (14/33) have a protocol for administering magnesium sulfate, with intravenous dosages ranging from 2 to 6 mg, and 58% (19/33) allow benzodiazepines to be administered.ConclusionProtocols for a patient with a seizure, including eclampsia and febrile seizures, vary widely across California. These recommendations for the prehospital diagnosis and treatment of seizures may be useful for EMS medical directors tasked with creating and revising these protocols.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Choosing Wisely campaign has spread to many countries. Methods for developing recommendations are inconsistent. We describe our process of developing such recommendations from a comprehensive national set of clinical practice guidelines (Current Care, CC) and the results of a one-year Choosing Wisely Finland project. METHODS:Two of the authors drafted the quality and process criteria for all the Choosing Wisely Finland recommendations. The quality criteria were relevance, feasibility, evidence-based and strength. These were discussed in editors' meetings and subsequently revised. Two different processes for developing recommendations within national clinical practice guidelines were designed and piloted (processes A and B). Process A was based on a published guideline. The recommendations are drafted by an editor and revised and approved by the guideline development group. In process B the development of the recommendations is integrated with guideline production or update. Choosing Wisely recommendations were then drafted for half of the published CC Guidelines. An additional process (process C) was designed for producing independent recommendations outside a guideline. RESULTS:At least one Choosing Wisely recommendation could be identified from 39 out of 52 reviewed guidelines. Of the 106 recommendations drafted, 62 (58%) were accepted for publication. The main reasons for rejection were inability to give a strong recommendation (n?=?18, 41%) and insufficient relevance (n?=?14, 32%). Two thirds (n?=?41, 66%) of the published recommendations were based on high to moderate level of evidence, and 18% (n?=?11) on low or very low level of evidence, whereas for the rest, the quality of evidence was not critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS:Choosing Wisely recommendations can be produced systematically from existing clinical practice guidelines. The rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine ensure high-quality recommendations. We welcome the use of our processes and methods describes in this article by other guideline-producing organizations.