↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review: antihypertensive drug therapy in patients of African and South Asian ethnicity

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review: antihypertensive drug therapy in patients of African and South Asian ethnicity
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11739-016-1422-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lizzy M. Brewster, Gert A. van Montfrans, Glenn P. Oehlers, Yackoob K. Seedat

Abstract

Despite the large differences in the epidemiology of hypertension across Europe, treatment strategies are similar for national populations of white European descent. However, hypertensive patients of African or South Asian ethnicity may require ethnic-specific approaches, as these population subgroups tend to have higher blood pressure at an earlier age that is more difficult to control, a higher occurrence of diabetes, and more target organ damage with earlier cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the evidence on antihypertensive drug treatment in South Asian and African ethnicity patients. We used the Cochrane systematic review methodology to retrieve trials in electronic databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase from their inception through November 2015; and with handsearch. We retrieved 4596 reports that yielded 35 trials with 7 classes of antihypertensive drugs in 25,540 African ethnicity patients. Aside from the well-known blood pressure efficacy of calcium channel blockers and diuretics, with lesser effect of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, nebivolol was not more effective than placebo in reducing systolic blood pressure levels. Trials with morbidity and mortality outcomes indicated that lisinopril and losartan-based therapy were associated with a greater incidence of stroke and sudden death. Furthermore, 1581 reports yielded 16 randomized controlled trials with blood pressure outcomes in 1719 South Asian hypertensive patients. In contrast with the studies in African ethnicity patients, there were no significant differences in blood pressure lowering efficacy between drugs, and no trials available with mortality outcomes. In conclusion, in patients of African ethnicity, treatment initiated with ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker monotherapy was associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We found no evidence of different efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in South Asians, but there is a need for trials with morbidity and mortality outcomes. Screening for cardiovascular risk at a younger age, treating hypertension at lower thresholds, and new delivery models to find, treat and follow hypertensives in the community may help reduce the excess cardiovascular mortality in these high-risk groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 8%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 45 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,025,408
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#348
of 952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,584
of 301,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#11
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.