Key result
Community-based cardiovascular risk factor intervention fails to reduce stroke mortality versus enhanced usual care.
Why the study?
Stroke is the second leading cause of death globally, but whether delivering a community-based intervention package for stroke prevention is feasible and reduces stroke mortality in a rural underserved community was unknown.
Does a community-based intervention package for cardiovascular risk factor control reduce stroke mortality in rural Indian adults ≥50 years of age?
RCT (n=15,926)
Open-label (outcome assessors blinded)
1:1 cluster randomization
Yes
Does a community-based intervention package for cardiovascular risk factor control reduce stroke mortality in rural Indian adults ≥50 years of age?
Hazard Ratio: 0.84 (95% CI 0.62–1.12)
Absolute Event Rate: 416.7% vs 484.9%
p-value: p=0.23
A community-based intervention for cardiovascular risk factor control in rural India improved blood pressure control and medication adherence but did not significantly reduce stroke mortality over 2.5 years.
<ns5:p>Background Stroke is the second leading cause of death globally. We tested whether it was feasible to deliver a community-based intervention package for prevention of stroke and, whether such an intervention would reduce stroke mortality in a rural underserved community in central India. Methods In this two-arm, parallel group, open label, cluster randomised controlled trial, 64 villages were randomly assigned with 1:1 allocation to the control and the intervention arm in a demographic surveillance site. The intervention was delivered for 3.5 years. It included community-based screening for hypertension, diabetes and stroke among individuals ≥ 50 years of age by trained community health workers followed by village-based treatment by an outreach physician, awareness generation and active follow up. In the control arm, households were provided information on the ill effects of tobacco and steps to quit it. Cause of death was ascertained on all deaths using verbal autopsies by physician coders who were blinded to the treatment allocation. Results There were 7671 individuals in the control arm and 8255 in the intervention arm who were ≥ 50 years of age. In the intervention arm, out of 8255 eligible individuals, 8026 were screened and 2793 were diagnosed with hypertension, 317 with diabetes and 182 with stroke and those with these three conditions received the intervention. The stroke mortality rate per 100,000 person-years in the last 2.5 years of the intervention, which was the primary outcome of the trial, was comparable in the intervention (416.7) and the control arm (484.9) (adjusted hazard ration [HR] 0.84, 95 % confidence interval [0.62,1.12]; p = 0.23). Important limitations include limited access to brain imaging and lipid profile measurements. Conclusions In this under resourced rural community in central India, a community-based intervention for stroke risk reduction did not reduce stroke mortality over the final 2.5 years of the trial. However, the trial intervention was acceptable and led to improved medication compliance, blood pressure control and awareness about stroke. Trial registration The trial was registered at the Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2015/12/006424.</ns5:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalkonde et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Stroke mortality and cardiovascular risk factors (n=15,926). Community-based intervention for cardiovascular risk factor control vs. Enhanced usual care was evaluated on Stroke mortality rate per 100,000 person-years in the last 2.5 years of the intervention (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62-1.12, p=0.23). A community-based intervention for cardiovascular risk factor control did not significantly reduce stroke mortality over the final 2.5 years of the trial compared to enhanced usual care (HR 0.84).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: