CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL OF AFRICA • Volume 34, No 5, November/December 2023 312 AFRICA 23.3% (n = 7), respectively. The proportion of patients with office BP control was highly variable, ranging from 16.4 to 61.2%, with a median of 33.3% (IQR: 29–43%; Table 4). BP control was described globally but not by drug strategies. Regarding risk of bias assessment (Table 5), one study had an overall risk of bias rating of good.40 Six studies were rated poor,20,21,26,30,36,38 and the remaining 23 articles were rated fair. In general, studies lacked sample size justification and some studies did not clearly and consistently define or implement the exposure measures across all study participants. Only six studies31,32,37,40,41,43 Table 4. Main results of interest from the systematic review First Author Mean of SBP/ DBP Controlled patients (%) Grade 1 (%) Grade 2 (%) Grade 3 (#) Lifestyle measures Monotherapy (%) Two– drug strategies (%) Three– drug strategies (%) Single pill (%) CCB (%) Diuretic (%) ACEI (%) ARB (%) RAS blockers Beta- blockers Centrally active drugs Vasodilators Adigun et al. – 47 – – 17.3 No 39 52 8.7 7 51 56 24 – – 5 28 – Hesse et al. – 26 – – – No 14 64 22.0 – – – – – – – – – Yusuff et al. – 33.9 27.5 27 33.3 No – – – – 21 39.4 8.6 – – 1.9 23.3 – Yusuff et al. – 29 27.5 29 34.1 No 27 52.3 18 – – – – – – – – – Etuk et al. – 30.5 29 29 35.9 No 20 48.6 26.9 – – – – – – – – – Pillay et al. – – – – – No 9–49 – – – 24.2 85 57.6 – – 13.1 9.5 – Rayner et al. – 61.2 – – – Yes 30.7 42.8 – – – – – – – – – – Olanrewaju et al. – – – – – No 9.1 37.1 35.8 – 65.8 84.4 66 5 – 12.7 28.5 – Ganiyu et al. 132.2 ± 18.6/84.9 ± 12.1 16.4 – – – Yes – 36.7 41.8, 41.3 – 21, 21.8 49.8, 46.9 10.3, 11.7 0.8, 4.4 – 8.4, 8.7 9.1, 5.6 0, 0.2 Ilesanmi et al. – 33.6 17.6 82.4 – No 12.8 62.8 23.2 – 32 87.2 16.8 – – 2 73.6 – Konin et al. – 44.6, 47.1, 47.9 – – – Yes 49.6 36.4 – – – – – – – – – – Kramoh et al. 169.4 ± 28.4/95.3 ± 15.7 42.6 4.8 14.7 32.3 No 33.1 53.8 11 – 31.6 63.5 – – 61.3 19 4.5 – Omole et al. – 46 – – – No 21.3 – 5.70 – 22 34.7 20.9 – – 5 15.8 0.5 Tamuno et al. – 34.50 21.5 29.5 42 Yes 8.5 42.5 30.5 7.5 22.8 34 23.9 4.60 – – 6 – Ukwe et al. 163/99 and 141/87 3.5, 18.9 11.4 45.5, 15.4 – Yes 27.6, 9.3 48.9, 38.220.4, 34.5 – 15.1, 15.9 48.2 and 46.4 18.1, 24.6 0.1, 1 18.2, 25.6 3, 2.6 7.5, 8.7 – Ojji et al. 148/93 – – – – No 5 28 31 17 67 54 48 10.7 – 34 5 5 Shobana et al. – – 34.2 59.4 – No 27.9 45 27 – – 72 54 – – 72.9 – – Yaméogo et al. – 45.8 – – – Yes 14.6 – – – 38.6 63.6 67.3 19.7 – 16.4 – – Mutua et al. – 33.40 62.5% of uncontrolled BP 37.5% of uncontrolled BP – No 16.6 42.3 – – 37.1 78 53 21.7 – 36.1 – – Ikama et al. 139/88.2 34.7 – – – No 21 46.3 24.8 – – – – – – – – – Shukrala et al. – – 69 31 – No 65 34 1 – 4.6 55 22.3 – – 6.9 11.2 – Bakare et al. 130.6/80 – 49.5 38.50 – No 2.5 28.5 36.5 1 53 64 52 17 – 63 – – Busser et al. – – 30.3 29.4 12.3 Yes 43 48.7 7.8 – – – – – – – – – Kika et al. 151/87 22.5 – – – No 66 34 0.0 17 – – – – – – – – Ssianulya et al. – 26.7 – – – No 5.8 32.8 42.2 – 72.3 77.1 – – 72.7 52.2 4.9 – Adejumo et al. – 53.6 – – – No 17.8 49.6 – 51.8 54.9 64.7 44.6 27.7 – 20.5 9.4 – Berhe et al. – 37 – – – No 38, 41 45 55 – 50, 49% 56, 54% 56, 55 – – 19, 19 – – Mbui et al. 141/83 46 46.5, 34.8 42.5, 19 – No 40 44 16 – 26 45.3 48.2 27.1 – 28.7 0.8 – Olowofela et al. – – – – – No 13 27.6 26.6 – 70.4 53 54 – – 23 18.4 – Teshome et al. 142/87.7 42.9 – – – Yes 58 39.2 2.8 – – – – – – – – – Median 145/87 33.9 27.5 29.4 32.3 21 42.6 26.6 12 34.5 59.7 48 13.8 67 19 9.4 0.5 IQR1– IQR3 141/84– 154/93 29–43 17.6–30.3 29–31 17.3–34.1 12.9–39.5 35.8–49 8.7–36.5 7–17 24–58 48–76 22.4–53.5 4.9–23 64–69 6.8–31.3 [5.1–22] 0.3–2.7 Min–max 169.4 ± 28.4/95.3 ± 15.7 16.4–61.2 4.8–69 14.7–59.4 12.3–42 5–66 27.6–64 0–55 1–51.8 4.6–72.3 34–87.2 8.6–67.3 0.1–27.718.2–72.7 2–72.9 0.8–73.6 0–5
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDIzNzc=