Journal of general internal medicine
-
Review Case Reports Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information.
A 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review. ⋯ Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Nurse-led disease management for hypertension control in a diverse urban community: a randomized trial.
Treated but uncontrolled hypertension is highly prevalent in African American and Hispanic communities. ⋯ A nurse management intervention combining an in-person visit, periodic phone calls, and home blood pressure monitoring over 9 months was associated with a statistically significant reduction in systolic, but not diastolic, blood pressure compared to usual care in a high risk population. Home blood pressure monitoring alone was no more effective than usual care.
-
It is unknown whether subjective assessment of social status predicts health outcomes in older adults. ⋯ In older adults, the belief that one is in the lowest rungs of social status is a measure of socioeconomic distress and of significant risk for functional decline. These findings suggest that self-report of low subjective social status may give clinicians additional information about which older adults are at high risk for future functional decline.
-
In this paper, we discuss common challenges in and principles for conducting systematic reviews of genetic tests. The types of genetic tests discussed are those used to 1). determine risk or susceptibility in asymptomatic individuals; 2). reveal prognostic information to guide clinical management in those with a condition; or 3). predict response to treatments or environmental factors. This paper is not intended to provide comprehensive guidance on evaluating all genetic tests. ⋯ In situations where clinical factors associated with risk are well characterized, comparative effectiveness reviews should assess the added value of using genetic testing along with known factors compared with using the known factors alone. For genome-wide association studies, reviewers should determine whether the association has been validated in multiple studies to minimize both potential confounding and publication bias. In addition, reviewers should note whether appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.