Does financial hardship associate with abnormal quantitative myocardial perfusion and major adverse cardiovascular event?

BACKGROUND: Data on impact of financial hardship on coronary artery disease (CAD) remain incomplete. METHODS: Consecutive subjects referred for clinical rest/stress cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) were enrolled. Financial hardship is defined as patients' inability to pay for their out-of-pocket expense for cardiac PET. Abnormal cardiac PET is defined as at least moderate relative perfusion defects at stress involving > 10% of the left ventricle or global coronary flow reserve ≤ 2.0. Patients were followed for major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) comprised of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and late coronary revascularization. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 4173 patients with mean age 65.6 ± 11.3 years, 72.2% men, and 93.6% reported as having medical insurance. Of these, 504 (12.1%) patients had financial hardship. On multivariable analysis, financial hardship associated with abnormal cardiac PET (odds ratio 1.377, p = 0.004) and MACE (hazard ratio 1.432, p = 0.010) and its association with MACE was mostly through direct effect with small proportion mediated by abnormal cardiac PET or known CAD. CONCLUSION: Among patients referred for cardiac rest/stress PET, financial hardship independently associates with myocardial perfusion abnormalities and MACE; however, its effect on MACE is largely not mediated by abnormal myocardial perfusion or known CAD suggesting distinct impact of financial hardship beyond traditional risk factors and CAD that deserves attention and intervention to effectively reduced adverse outcomes. Having medical insurance does not consistently protect from financial hardship and a more preventive-oriented restructuring may provide better outcomes at lower cost.

Design and rationale of the randomized trial of comprehensive lifestyle modification, optimal pharmacological treatment and utilizing PET imaging for quantifying and managing stable coronary artery disease (the CENTURY study).

BACKGROUND: The literature reports no randomized trial in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) of a comprehensive management strategy integrating intense lifestyle management, maximal medical treatment to specific goals and high precision quantitative cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) for identifying high mortality risk patients needing essential invasive procedures. We hypothesize that this comprehensive strategy achieves greater risk factor reduction, lower major adverse cardiovascular events and fewer invasive procedures than standard practice. METHODS: The CENTURY Study (NCT00756379) is a randomized-controlled-trial study in patients with stable or at high risk for CAD. Patients are randomized to standard of care (Standard group) or intense comprehensive lifestyle-medical treatment to targets and PET guided interventions (Comprehensive group). Comprehensive Group patients are regularly consulted by the CENTURY team implementing diet/lifestyle/exercise program and medical treatment to target risk modification. Cardiac PET at baseline, 24-, and 60-months quantify the physiologic severity of CAD and guide interventions in the Comprehensive group while patients and referring physicians of the Standard group are blinded to PET results. The primary end-point is the CENTURY risk score reduction during 5 years follow-up. The secondary endpoint is a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The CENTURY Study is the first study in stable CAD to test the incremental benefit of a comprehensive strategy integrating intense lifestyle modification, medical treatment to specific goals, and high-precision quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging to guide revascularization. A total of 1028 patients have been randomized, and the 5 years follow-up will conclude in 2022.

The spironolactone, amiloride, losartan, and thiazide (SALT) double-blind crossover trial in patients with low-renin hypertension and elevated aldosterone-renin ratio.

BACKGROUND: There is continuing variation in diagnosis and estimated prevalence of primary hyperaldosteronism. The higher estimates encourage search for adrenal adenomas in patients with elevated ratios of plasma aldosterone to renin. However, it is more likely that patients with normal plasma K+ and aldosterone belong to the polygenic spectrum of low-renin hypertension rather than have the same monogenic syndrome as classic Conn's. Our primary hypothesis was that in low-renin patients with normal plasma K+ and aldosterone, a thiazide diuretic, bendroflumethiazide, would be as effective as spironolactone in overcoming the Na+ retention and lowering blood pressure. Secondary objectives were to compare the dose response for each diuretic and to evaluate amiloride as an alternative to spironolactone. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients entered and 51 patients completed a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized crossover trial. Entry criteria included low plasma renin, normal K+, elevated aldosterone-renin ratio, and a previous systolic blood pressure response to spironolactone of > or = 20 mm Hg. Two doses each of spironolactone and bendroflumethiazide were compared. The crossover also included amiloride and losartan. Outcome measures were blood pressure, plasma renin, and other biochemical markers of diuretic action. Spironolactone 100 mg and bendroflumethiazide 5 mg caused similar falls in systolic blood pressure, whereas bendroflumethiazide 2.5 mg was 5/2 mm Hg less effective in reducing blood pressure than either bendroflumethiazide 5 mg or spironolactone 50 mg (P<0.005). Amiloride 40 mg was as effective as the other diuretics. Biochemical indices of natriuresis showed bendroflumethiazide to be less effective than either spironolactone or amiloride; plasma renin rose 4-fold on spironolactone but only 2-fold on bendroflumethiazide (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with a low plasma renin but normal K+, bendroflumethiazide 5 mg was as effective as spironolactone 100 mg in lowering blood pressure, despite patients being selected for a previous large fall in blood pressure on spironolactone. Because this result differs from that expected in primary hyperaldosteronism, our finding argues against low-renin hypertension including a large, undiagnosed pool of primary hyperaldosteronism. However, spironolactone was the more effective natriuretic agent, suggesting that inappropriate aldosterone release or response may still contribute to the Na+ retention of low-renin hypertension.

Evaluating and improving recruitment and retention in an mHealth clinical trial: an example of iterating methods during a trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment and retention strategy investigations in mHealth clinical trials are rare. Technology presents an opportunity to intensely and remotely evaluate recruitment, use of mobile apps, and retention, leading to new insights for continuous improvement of mHealth trials. The objective of this paper is to present a case study in which a trial evaluated and changed strategies during a clinical trial to improve recruitment, adherence to study protocols, and retention in the mHealth trial. METHODS: In Fall 2015, the NUYou trial enrolled 150 college freshmen in an mHealth protocol. Three months after study initiation, NUYou struggled to meet recruitment goals and maintain anticipated usage levels of the study smartphone application. Two sets of data were collected to improve recruitment and retention: a survey about recruitment was sent to the target population and surveys regarding usability of the app was sent to the study sample. Survey results informed improvements in recruitment strategies, the study retention protocol, and the smartphone application. RESULTS: Survey results revealed several insights including misunderstanding components of the trial by potential participants, low perceived usefulness of the app, and little recall or impact of the incentive structure. After implementation of user-centered improvements, the second cohort of NUYou recruitment in the fall of 2016 produced an equal sample size in 4 weeks less time. Winter quarter of 2016 compared to 2017 demonstrated an improvement in retention via app use and completion of weekly in-app surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and retention in clinical trials continues to be a critical challenge and mHealth trials may present both unique challenges and opportunities. To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe a systematic evaluation followed by changes and further evaluation to recruitment, use of the mHealth application, adherence to study protocol, and retention during an mHealth clinical trial. Future work should adopt and explicitly study these processes to optimize both enrollment and retention in these types of trials to preserve validity and reliability of research results.