Medicine
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/12
This repository contains the published and unpublished research of the Faculty of Medicine by the staff members of the faculty
Browse
6 results
Search Results
Item Efficacy and safety of a novel low-dose triple single-pill combination compared with placebo for initial treatment of hypertension(Elsevier Biomedical, 2024) Rodgers, A.; Salam, A.; Schutte, A.E.; Cushman, W.C.; De Silva, H.A.; Tanna, G.L.D.; Grobbee, D.; Narkiewicz, K.; Ojji, D.B.; Poulter, N.R.; Schlaich, M.P.; Oparil, S.; Spiering, W.; Williams, B.; Jr, J.T.W.; Gutierez, A.; Sanni, A.; Lakshman, P.; McMullen, D.; Ranasinghe, G.; Gianacas, C.; Shanthakumar, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, N.; Whelton, P.BACKGROUND Single-pill combinations of 3 or more low-dose blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs hold promise for initial or early treatment of hypertension.OBJECTIVES We conducted a placebo-controlled trial of a new single-pill combination containing low doses of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide in 2 dose options to assess efficacy and safety.METHODS This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial enrolled adults with hypertension receiving 0 to 1 BP-lowering drugs. After a 2-week placebo run-in during which any BP-lowering medication was stopped, participants were eligible if home systolic BP (SBP) was 130 to 154 mm Hg. Participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to GMRx2 ¼ dose (telmisartan 10 mg/amlodipine 1.25 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg), GMRx2 ½ dose (telmisartan 20 mg/amlodipine 2.5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg), or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was difference in change in home SBP from randomization to week 4, and primary safety outcome was treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event.RESULTS From June 14, 2021 to October 18, 2023, a total of 295 participants (mean age: 51 years; 56% female) were randomized and 96% completed the trial. Baseline mean home BP was 139/86 mm Hg and clinic BP was 138/86 mm Hg after placebo run-in. The placebo-corrected least square mean differences in home SBP at Week 4 were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI: -4.5 to -10.2) for GMRx2 ¼ dose and -8.2 mm Hg (95% CI: -5.2 to -11.3) for GMRx2 ½ dose; reductions for clinic BP were 8.0/4.0 and 9.5/4.9 mm Hg. At Week 4, clinic BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was 37%, 65%, and 70% for placebo, GMRx2 ¼ dose, and GMRx2 ½ dose, respectively (both doses P < 0.001 vs placebo). Placebo, GMRx2-triple ¼, and GMRx2 ½ treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event occurred in 1 (1.6%), 0, and 6 (5.1%), respectively; out of normal range serum sodium or potassium was observed in 4 (6.3%), 12 (10.6%), and 12 (10.1%), respectively, but no participant had a serum sodium <130/>150 mmol/L or potassium <3.0/>6.0 mmol/L. Serious adverse events were reported by 2 participants in the placebo and GMRx2 ½ groups and none in the GMRx2 ¼ group.CONCLUSIONS In a population with mild-to-moderate BP elevation, both dose versions of the novel low-dose triple single-pill combination showed good tolerability and clinically relevant BP reductions compared with placebo. (Efficacy and Safety of GRMx2 Compared to Placebo for the Treatment of Hypertension: NCT04518306).Item Communication disability in low and middle-income countries : a call to action(BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2024) Marshall, J.; Wylie, K.; McLeod, S.; McAllister, L.; Barrett, H.; Owusu, N.A.; Hettiarachchi, S.; Atherton, M.No abstract availableItem Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risks, 1990-2022(Elsevier, 2023) Mensah, G.A.; Fuster, V.; Murray, C.J.L.; Roth, G.A.; Mettananda, K.C.D. (Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risks Collaborators); Mettananda, S.(Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risks Collaborators)No abstract availableItem Malaria control, elimination, and prevention as components of health security: A review(American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2022) Perera, R.; Wickremasinghe, R.; Newby, G.; Caldera, A.; Fernando, D.; Mendis, K.International travel, a major risk factor for imported malaria, has emerged as an important challenge in sustaining malaria elimination and prevention of its reestablishment. To make travel and trade safe, the WHO adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR) which provides a legal framework for the prevention, detection, and containment of public health risks at source. We conducted a systematic review to assess the relevance and the extent of implementation of IHR practices that can play a role in reducing malaria transmission. Selected studies addressed control, elimination, and prevention of reestablishment of malaria. Study themes focused on appraisal of surveillance and response, updating national policies to facilitate malaria control and elimination, travel as a risk factor for malaria and risk mitigation methods, vector control, transfusion malaria, competing interests, malaria in border areas, and other challenges posed by emerging communicable diseases on malaria control and elimination efforts. Review results indicate that malaria has not been prioritized as part of the IHR nor has the IHR focused on vector-borne diseases such as malaria. The IHR framework in its current format can be applied to malaria and other vector-borne diseases to strengthen surveillance and response, overcome challenges at borders, and improve data sharing-especially among countries moving toward elimination-but additional guidelines are required. Application of the IHR in countries in the malaria control phase may not be effective until the disease burden is brought down to elimination levels. Considering existing global elimination goals, the application of IHR for malaria should be urgently reviewed and included as part of the IHR.Item Use of portfolios for assessment of global health residents: qualitative evaluation of design and implementation(Health Sciences Centre, 2018) Gibson, C.; Chandratilake, M.; Hull, A.BACKGROUND: When the Global Health training program was created at the University of Calgary, residents were encouraged to seek learning experiences that met their career goals and individualized objectives. An assessment tool was sought that could be reliable, valid, yet flexible. A portfolio process was chosen, but research was necessary to determine whether it was robust. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted with academic experts in Canadian residency training, as well as directors and residents involved in Global Health study in order to assess the validity and benefit of such a tool. Through an online survey, interviews, and focus groups, views on the portfolio and intended content were collected and coded thematically. RESULTS: Multiple themes emerged from the content analysis. Overall, all stakeholders (residents and faculty) were supportive of the use of portfolios for summative assessment, mentioning authentic and varying assessments, reflective and narrative components, and mentor interaction as positive attributes, but they did have many recommendations. CONCLUSION:This qualitative evaluation validated the use of portfolios for this cohort of students while yielding comments and suggestions that will further enhance the interactive and flexible nature of this seldom used assessment tool. These findings contribute to the understanding of how Global Health assessment can remain individualized yet rigorous.Item Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition(Elsevier, 2018) Jamison, D.T; Alwan, A.; Mock, C.N.; Nugent, R.; Watkins, D.; Adeyi, O.; Anand, S.; Atun, R.; Bertozzi, S.; Bhutta, Z.; Binagwaho, A.; Black, R.; Blecher, M.; Bloom, B.R.; Brouwer, E.; Bundy, D.A.P.; Chisholm, D.; Cieza, A.; Cullen, M.; Danforth, K.; de Silva, N.; Debas, H.T.; Donkor, P.; Dua, T.; Fleming, K.A.; Gallivan, M.; Garcia, P.J.; Gawande, A.; Gaziano, T.; Gelband, H.; Glass, R.; Glassman, A.; Gray, G.; Habte, D.; Holmess, K.K.; Horton, S.; Hutton, G.; Jha, P.; Knaul, F.M.; Kobusingye, O.; Krakauer, E.L.; Kruk, M.E.; Lechmann, P.; Laxminarayan, R.; Levin, C.; Looi, L.M.; Madhav, N.; Mahmoud, A.; Mbanya, J.C.; Measham, A.; Medina-Mora, M.E.; Medin, C.; Mills, A.; Mills, J.A.; Montoya, J.; Norheim, O.; Olson, Z.; Omokhodion, F.; Oppenheim, B.; Ord, T.; Patel, V.; Patton, G.C.; Peabody, J.; Prabhakaran, D.; Qi, J.; Reynolds, T.; Ruacan, S.; Sankaranarayan, R.; Sepulveda, J.; Skolnik, R.; Smith, K.R.; Temmerman, M.; Tollman, S.; Verguet, S.; Walker, D.G.; Walker, N.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, K.The World Bank is publishing nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) between 2015 and 2018. Volume 9, Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, summarises the main messages from all the volumes and contains cross-cutting analyses. This Review draws on all nine volumes to convey conclusions. The analysis in DCP3 is built around 21 essential packages that were developed in the nine volumes. Each essential package addresses the concerns of a major professional community (eg, child health or surgery) and contains a mix of intersectoral policies and health-sector interventions. 71 intersectoral prevention policies were identified in total, 29 of which are priorities for early introduction. Interventions within the health sector were grouped onto five platforms (population based, community level, health centre, first-level hospital, and referral hospital). DCP3 defines a model concept of essential universal health coverage (EUHC) with 218 interventions that provides a starting point for country-specific analysis of priorities. Assuming steady-state implementation by 2030, EUHC in lower-middle-income countries would reduce premature deaths by an estimated 4·2 million per year. Estimated total costs prove substantial: about 9·1% of (current) gross national income (GNI) in low-income countries and 5·2% of GNI in lower-middle-income countries. Financing provision of continuing intervention against chronic conditions accounts for about half of estimated incremental costs. For lower-middle-income countries, the mortality reduction from implementing the EUHC can only reach about half the mortality reduction in non-communicable diseases called for by the Sustainable Development Goals. Full achievement will require increased investment or sustained intersectoral action, and actions by finance ministries to tax smoking and polluting emissions and to reduce or eliminate (often large) subsidies on fossil fuels appear of central importance. DCP3 is intended to be a model starting point for analyses at the country level, but country-specific cost structures, epidemiological needs, and national priorities will generally lead to definitions of EUHC that differ from country to country and from the model in this Review. DCP3 is particularly relevant as achievement of EUHC relies increasingly on greater domestic finance, with global developmental assistance in health focusing more on global public goods. In addition to assessing effects on mortality, DCP3 looked at outcomes of EUHC not encompassed by the disability-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses. The other objectives included financial protection (potentially better provided upstream by keeping people out of the hospital rather than downstream by paying their hospital bills for them), stillbirths averted, palliative care, contraception, and child physical and intellectual growth. The first 1000 days after conception are highly important for child development, but the next 7000 days are likewise important and often neglected.