ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The leading global risk factor for cardiovascular-disease-related morbidity and mortality is hypertension. In the past decade, attention has been paid to increase females' representation. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the representation of females and presentation of sex-stratified data in studies investigating the effect of antihypertensive drugs has increased over the past decades. METHODS: After systematically searching PubMed and Embase for studies evaluating the effect of the five major antihypertensive medication groups until May 2020, a scoping review was performed. The primary outcome was the proportion of included females. The secondary outcome was whether sex stratification was performed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 73,867 articles. After the selection progress, 2046 studies were included for further analysis. These studies included 1,348,172 adults with a mean percentage of females participating of 38.1%. Female participation in antihypertensive studies showed an increase each year by 0.2% (95% CI 0.36-0.52), p < 0.01). Only 75 (3.7%) studies performed sex stratification, and this was the highest between 2011 and 2020 (7.2%). CONCLUSION: Female participation showed a slight increase in the past decade but is still underrepresented compared to males. As data are infrequently sex-stratified, more attention is needed to possible sex-related differences in treatment effects to different antihypertensive compounds.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: In the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, early recognition and adequate treatment of hypertension are of leading importance. However, the efficacy of antihypertensives may be depending on sex disparities. Our objective was to evaluate and quantify the sex-diverse effects of beta-blockers (BB) on hypertension and cardiac function. We focussed on comparing hypertensive female versus male individuals. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search was performed for studies on BBs from inception to May 2020. A total of 66 studies were included that contained baseline and follow up measurements on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and cardiac function. Data also had to be stratified for sex. Mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model. In females as compared to males, BB treatment decreased systolic BP 11.1 mmHg (95% CI, -14.5; -7.8) vs. 11.1 mmHg (95% CI, -14.0; -8.2), diastolic BP 8.0 mmHg (95% CI, -10.6; -5.3) vs. 8.0 mmHg (95% CI, -10.1; -6.0), and HR 10.8 beats per minute (bpm) (95% CI, -17.4; -4.2) vs. 9.8 bpm (95% CI, -11.1; -8.4)), respectively, in both sexes' absolute and relative changes comparably. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased only in males (3.7% (95% CI, 0.6; 6.9)). Changes in left ventricular mass and cardiac output (CO) were only reported in males and changed -20.6 g (95% CI, -56.3; 15.1) and -0.1 L (95% CI, -0.5; 0.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BBs comparably lowered BP and HR in both sexes. The lack of change in CO in males suggests that the reduction in BP is primarily due to a decrease in vascular resistance. Furthermore, females were underrepresented compared to males. We recommend that future research should include more females and sex-stratified data when researching the treatment effects of antihypertensives.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We studied discordance between health literacy of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and assessment of health literacy by their treating health professionals, and explored whether discordance is associated with the patients' socioeconomic background. METHODS: Patients with RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA) or gout from three Dutch outpatient rheumatology clinics completed the nine-domain Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Treating health professionals assessed their patients on each HLQ domain. Discordance per domain was defined as a ≥2-point difference on a 0-10 scale (except if both scores were below three or above seven), leading to three categories: 'negative discordance' (i.e. professional scored lower), 'probably the same' or 'positive discordance' (i.e. professional scored higher). We used multivariable multilevel multinomial regression models with patients clustered by health professionals to test associations with socioeconomic factors (age, gender, education level, migration background, employment, disability for work, living alone). RESULTS: We observed considerable discordance (21-40% of patients) across HLQ domains. Most discordance occurred for 'Critically appraising information' (40.5%, domain 5). Comparatively, positive discordance occurred more frequently. Negative discordance was more frequently and strongly associated with socioeconomic factors, specifically lower education level and non-Western migration background (for five HLQ domains). Associations between socioeconomic factors and positive discordance were less consistent. CONCLUSION: Frequent discordance between patients' scores and professionals' estimations indicates there may be hidden challenges in communication and care, which differ between socioeconomic groups. Successfully addressing patients' health literacy needs cannot solely depend on health professionals' estimations but will require measurement and dialogue. VIDEO ABSTRACT: A video abstract of this article can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggnB1rATdQ4.
